GIFT  OF 
SEELEY  W.  MUDD 

and 

GEORGE  1.  COCHRAN    MEYER  ELSASSER 
DR.  JOHN  R.  HAYNES    WILLIAM  L.  HONNOLD 
JAMES  R.  MARTIN         MRS.  JOSEPH  F.  SARTORI 

to  the 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SOUTHERN  BRANCH 


JOHN  FISKE 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


!AY  20 
JAN  5     1952 


3 


UNIVERSr 

LIBRARY 


Eeto.  SSaas&itiffton  (SlaWien,  D.  2X 


THE   LORD'S  PRAYER.     i6mo,  $1.00. 

APPLIED   CHRISTIANITY.     Moral  Aspects  of   Social 

Questions.     i6mo,  $1.25. 
TOOLS  AND  THE  MAN.     Property  and  Industry  under 

the  Christian  Law.     i6mo,  $1.25. 
RULING    IDEAS    OF   THE    PRESENT    AGE.      i6mo, 

$1.25. 
WHO  WROTE  THE  BIBLE  ?    A  Book  for  the  People. 

i6mo,  $1.25. 
SEVEN  PUZZLING  BIBLE  BOOKS.     A  Supplement  to 

"  Who  Wrote  the  Bible  ? "     i6mo,  $1.25. 
HOW  MUCH   IS   LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

161110,  $1.25. 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  &  COMPANY, 
BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK. 


HOW  MUCH  IS  LEFT  OF 
THE  OLD  DOCTKINES? 

for  tjje  people 


BY 


WASHINGTON  GLADDEN 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 

!«Cl)t  ttinrrsiDi'  press,  Cambridge 

1899 


86983 


COPYRIGHT,   1899,   BY  WASHINGTON   GLADDEN 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


T 

c. 


PREFACE 

THIS  little  book,  like  "  Who  Wrote  the  Bible  ?  " 
is  not  for  the  scholars,  but  for  the  people.  No 
claim  to  special  theological  or  scientific  knowledge 
can  be  set  up  by  the  writer ;  he  has  only  sought  to 
bring  together  the  terms  of  the  theological  equa- 
tion as  they  are  understood  by  many  well-instructed 
men  of  the  present  day.  The  need  of  cancellation 
is  made  apparent  by  such  a  restatement :  we  get 

^J    rid   of   fractions,  and  secure  a  more   intelligible 
cs 

theory  of  religion. 

It  will  be  evident  to  the  reader  that  these  chap- 
ters have  been  submitted  to  the  test  of  popular 

Efi 

>r*    presentation.     Their  direct  and  familiar  style  is 

J5"j 

not  the  result  of  literary  artifice  ;  they  are  the 
words  of  a  man  speaking  face  to  face  with  his  fel- 
low men.  Sometimes,  as  on  pages  57  and  58,  the 
illustrations  are  drawn  from  the  immediate  sur- 
roundings, and  would  lose  all  their  force  if  the 
circumstances  were  not  permitted  to  appear.  No 
apology  is  therefore  made  for  letting  these  words 
go  forth  in  this  colloquial  form ;  the  purpose  which 


iv  PREFACE 

they  are  intended  to  fulfill  would  not  be  secured 
by  literary  reconstruction. 

In  trying  to  state  the  substance  of  what  is  be- 
lieved at  the  present  day  it  has  been  necessary  to 
make  many  quotations  ;  these  are  part  of  the  argu- 
ment, generally  the  best  part  of  it,  and  I  have 
incorporated  them  in  the  text  where  they  belong, 
instead  of  segregating  them  in  appendices  or  foot- 
notes. 

WASHINGTON  GLADDEN. 

FIBST  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH, 
COLUMBUS,  OHIO,  October  25,  1899. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

•''  I.  BELIEF  IN  GOD 1 

II.  How  THE  WORLDS  WERE  MADE         ...  28 

III.  WHAT  is  THE  SUPERNATURAL  ?  .        .        .46 

IV.  WHAT  is  THE  BIBLE  ? 65 

V.  Is  THERE  A  PERSONAL  DEVIL  ?       .        .        .        .84 

VI.  WHAT  DO  WE  INHERIT  ? 112 

VII.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY    ....  133 

VIII.  THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH 157 

IX.  How  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN 174 

X.  PREDESTINATION 196 

XL  CONVERSION 219 

XII.  THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTISM          ....  240 

XIII.  THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  .        .  260 

XIV.  THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY        ....  280 
XV.  THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN 301 


WHAT  IS  LEFT   OF   THE  OLD 
DOCTRINES  ? 


BELIEF   IN   GOD 

THE  time  has  come  for  some  of  us  who  call  our- 
selves Christians  to  take  an  inventory  of  the  be- 
liefs of  which  we  find  ourselves  in  possession.  The- 
ological labels  we  are  constrained  to  decline  until 
the  meaning  of  some  of  them  is  better  defined. 
Orthodox  we  know  that  we  are  not,  if  that  implies 
subscription  to  creeds  framed  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury; and  if  Liberalism  is  mainly  criticism  and 
denial,  or  if,  as  is  widely  assumed,  it  signifies  de- 
fiance of  all  wholesome  restraints  and  conventions, 
then  we  are  not  Liberals.  But  we  still  profess 
and  call  ourselves  Christians ;  and  we  need  to 
make  clear  to  our  own  minds  just  what  this  in- 
volves, so  far  as  concerns  the  intellectual  life.  We 
may  be  misunderstood  by  those  to  whom  the  wear- 
ing of  the  aforesaid  labels  is  a  matter  of  great 
importance,  but  that  need  not  disturb  us  if  we  only 
understand  ourselves. 

The    main    question    before    us    implies    that 


2    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

changes  have  been  taking  place  in  the  old  doc- 
trines ;  that  portions  of  them  are  obsolete  or 
obsolescent ;  that  in  form  and  content  they  are 
different  now  from  what  once  they  were.  This 
implication  will  at  once  be  challenged.  Doctrines 
that  are  true,  it  will  be  said,  cannot  be  mutable  ; 
they  must  be  as  true  for  one  generation  as  for 
another.  A  creed  that  is  constantly  reshaped  must 
be  a  compend  of  error.  But  shall  we  say  that 
the  vine  which  has  now  of  branches  and  of  clusters 
fivefold  more  than  it  had  five  years  ago  is  not  a 
true  vine  ;  or  that  the  gray -bearded  sage  who  thirty 
years  ago  was  a  man  in  his  stalwart  prime,  and 
thirty  years  before  that  a  ruddy-faced  youth,  just 
passing  out  of  adolescence,  and  twenty  years  be- 
fore that  a  helpless  infant  in  his  mother's  arms  is 
not  a  true  man  ?  Is  not  every  living  thing  con- 
stantly changing,  not  only  its  form,  but  its  sub- 
stance ?  If  Christian  doctrine  is  a  living  thing,  it 
must  be  undergoing  changes. 

Christian  doctrine  consists  of  the  opinions  and 
beliefs  of  men  concerning  God  and  his  kingdom. 
As  the  generations  pass,  and  men  learn  more  about 
themselves  and  the  world  in  which  they  live  and 
the  works  of  God  in  the  world,  their  point  of  view 
changes,  and  their  doctrines  are  modified  by  their 
growing  knowledge. 

"  Nay,  but,"  some  wise  man  will  say,  "  Christian 
doctrine  is  all  drawn  from  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
does  not  change  ;  the  truth  is  all  there  ;  all  we  have 
to  do  is  to  interpret  it  rightly,  and  then  we  have 


BELIEF  IN   GOD  3 

the  everlasting  and  unchangeable  truth."  That 
statement  is  not  quite  correct,  for  our  doctrines,  if 
they  are  true  and  complete,  are  drawn  from  other 
sources  as  well  as  from  the  Bible.  They  are  drawn 
also  from  our  knowledge  of  ourselves,  and  of  the 
world  in  which  we  live.  But,  even  admitting  all 
this,  it  is  still  true  that,  the  enlargement  of  our 
knowledge,  and  the  change  in  our  point  of  view, 
lead  us  to  interpret  the  Bible  differently.  We  do 
not  take  the  same  view  of  the  Bible  itself  that  once 
we  took  ;  it  is  quite  impossible  that  we  should. 
We  have  studied  it  more  carefully,  we  have  gone 
to  the  Bible  itself  to  find  out  what  kind  of  book 
it  is,  and  the  Bible  has  plainly  told  us  that  it  is  not 
the  kind  of  book  that  we  once  thought  it  to  be. 
It  is  a  better  book,  a  far  more  useful  book,  but  it 
is  a  different  book.  And  therefore,  because  our 
view  of  the  book  has  changed,  and  our  methods  of 
interpreting  it  have  changed,  our  doctrines,  even 
in  their  Biblical  elements,  must  have  undergone 
considerable  change. 

One  who  accepts  the  Bible  as  authority  should 
look  for  changes  in  theology.  One  whole  book  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
is  devoted  to  the  description  of  a  great  doctrinal 
evolution.  The  writer  shows  how  the  Christian 
dispensation  had  been  substituted  for  the  Jewish 
dispensation  ;  how  an  old  theology  had  given  place 
to  a  new  theology.  "  For  if  that  first  covenant 
had  been  faultless,"  he  says,  "  then  should  no  place 
have  been  sought  for  the  second.  ...  In  that  he 


4    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

saith  a  new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old. 
Now  that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old  is  ready 
to  vanish  away."  1 

In  God's  progressive  revelation  of  himself  to  the 
world  there  is  always  that  which  decayeth  and 
waxeth  old,  and  is  ready  to  vanish  away.  The 
revelation  is  always  through  life,  and  this  is  the 
process  of  life.  "  Dying,  and  behold  we  live  "  is 
a  biological  law.  It  is  only  by  the  waste  and 
destruction  of  old  tissues  that  new  tissues  are 
formed. 

And  yet,  although  our  bodies  change  in  form 
and  size  and  appearance,  and  although  the  mate- 
rials of  which  they  are  composed  are  constantly 
changing,  they  are  the  same  bodies  ;  the  principle 
of  identity  is  there  ;  there  is  a  continuity  of  life 
and  experience  which  is  a  fact  no  less  positive  than 
the  fact  of  perennial  change.  And  in  like  man- 
ner the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  shows  that  the  es- 
sential truth  of  that  old  covenant  survives,  under 
changed  forms,  in  the  new.  This  is  what,  as  I 
trust,  we  shall  find  in  these  studies.  "  We  have 
kept,"  says  Dr.  Sabatier,  "and  still  repeat  the 
dogmas  of  early  times  ;  but  we  pour  into  them  un- 
consciously a  new  meaning.  The  terms  do  not 
change,  but  the  ideas  and  their  interpretation  are 
renewed  with  each  generation.  This  is  particu- 
larly the  work  of  the  theologian.  We  spend  our 
time,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  in  putting  new 
wine  into  old  bottles.  There  is  not  a  single  dogma 
1  Heb.  viii. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  5 

dating  from  two  or  three  centuries  back  which  is 
repeated  with  the  same  meaning  as  in  its  origina- 
tion. We  still  speak  of  the  inspiration  of  the  pro- 
phets and  of  the  apostles,  of  atonement,  of  the 
Trinity,  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  of  miracles ;  but, 
whether  in  a  greater  or  a  less  degree,  we  under- 
stand them  differently  from  our  fathers.  The  river 
Hows  on,  even  when  the  waters  are  apparently  stag- 
nant at  the  surface.  But  the  elasticity  of  words 
and  formulas  has  a  limit.  There  comes  a  time 
when  the  new  wine  causes  the  old  bottles  to  break, 
and  when  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  church  to 
make  new  vessels  to  receive  it.  Then  new  words 
appear  in  languages  and  new  dogmas  in  theology. 
It  is  thus  that  the  dogmas  of  justification  by  faith 
and  of  universal  priesthood  came  into  prominence 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  New  dogmas,  do  we  call 
them?  Rather,  we  should  say,  old  ones  rising 
again  with  new  energy."  l 

"  How  much  is  left  of  the  old  doctrines  ? "  is 
the  question  we  are  asking.  Our  study  will  show 
us  that  though  the  phrases  which  we  use  are  modi- 
fied, and  some  of  the  conceptions  are  altered,  the 
substance  of  the  old  truth  remains. 

What  do  we  mean  by  the  old  doctrines  ?  I  shall 
not  go  back  very  far :  I  shall  consider  only  the 
doctrines  that  were  generally  believed  in  our  evan- 
gelical churches  in  England  and  America  from 
fifty  to  one  hundred  years  ago,  in  days  which  some 
of  us  can  well  remember.  Within  the  last  half  of 
1  The  Vitality  of  Christian  Dogmas,  pp.  43-45. 


6    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

this  century  some  important  changes  have  been 
taking  place.  It  was  in  1838  that  the  New  School 
Presbyterians  in  America  separated  from  the  Old 
School ;  it  was  in  1831  that  McLeod  Campbell 
was  excommunicated  from  the  Scottish  church ;  it 
was  in  1850-51,  that  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell,  in  Hart- 
ford, was  on  trial  for  heresy ;  it  was  in  1859  that 
Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species  "  was  published ;  and 
the  rapid  movement  of  thought  in  the  theological 
and  in  the  scientific  world  since  those  days  has  re- 
sulted in  the  modifications  of  belief  which  we  are 
now  to  consider. 

The  first  question  before  us  concerns  the  central 
doctrine  of  theology,  —  the  doctrine  of  God.  Has 
that  doctrine  essentially  changed  during  the  last 
half  of  this  century  ?  Are  our  beliefs  about  God 
the  same  beliefs  that  were  generally  held  fifty 
years  ago  ? 

There  are  those  among  us  who  will  say  very 
positively  that  the  old  doctrine  of  God  has  become 
antiquated  ;  that  intelligent  men  no  longer  accept 
the  theory  of  the  existence  of  such  a  Being  as  our 
fathers  believed  in  and  worshiped.  Some  of  them 
will  recall  the  rather  contemptuous  use  by  Matthew 
Arnold  of  the  common  definition  of  God,  "  a  per- 
sonal First  Cause  that  thinks  and  loves,  the  moral 
and  intelligent  Governor  of  the  universe,"  and  of 
his  reiterated  statement  that  this  definition  cannot 
possibly  be  verified.  Some  of  them  will  remember 
the  many  arguments  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  which 


BELIEF   IN   GOD  7 

maintain  that  although  there  may  be  such  a  God 
as  this,  we  do  not  and  cannot  know  anything  about 
him  ;  that  if  he  exists  he  is  unknowable. 

What  we  do  know,  say  sotne  of  these  philo- 
sophers, is  the  existence  of  a  universe,  a  mighty 
aggregation  of  forces,  marvelously  coordinated  and 
cooperating  for  the  production  of  the  results  we 
see  about  us  ;  a  Cosmos,  or  Universal  Order,  which 
we  cannot  help  regarding  with  wonder  and  awe, 
toward  which  our  deepest  feelings  must  be  akin 
to  those  of  worship.  Some  of  these  sturdy  doubters 
and  deniers  seem  to  understand  that  this  very  feel- 
ing of  awe  and  worship  of  which  man  can  never 
rid  himself  must  signify  something.  So  Strauss 
insisted  that  those  who,  with  him,  had  thrown  away 
the  old  theology  had  still  a  religion ;  that  before 
this  mighty  Cosmos  itself  they  still  bowed  down 
with  reverence.  And  truly,  if  a  man  will  take 
time  to  think — to  get  into  his  mind  some  concep- 
tion of  the  universe  in  which  he  lives  —  he  will  be 
forced  to  wonder  and  to  worship.  "  This  Uni- 
verse," cries  Carlyle,  "  what  could  the  wild  man 
know  of  it ;  what  can  we  yet  know  ?  That  it  is  a 
Force,  and  thousandfold  complexity  of  Forces  ;  a 
Force  which  is  not  we.  That  is  all ;  it  is  not  we, 
it  is  altogether  different  from  us.  Force,  Force, 
everywhere  Force  ;  we  ourselves  a  mysterious  Force 
in  the  centre  of  that.  There  is  not  a  leaf  rotting 
on  the  highway  but  has  Force  in  it ;  how  else  could 
it  rot  ?  Nay,  surely,  to  the  atheistic  thinker,  if 
such  an  one  were  possible,  it  must  be  a  miracle 


8    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

too,  this  huge,  illimitable  whirlwind  of  force  which 
envelops  us  here  ;  never  resting  whirlwind,  high 
as  Immensity,  old  as  Eternity.  What  is  it  ?  God's 
creation,  the  religious  people  answer;  it  is  the 
Almighty  God's.  Atheistic  science  babbles  poorly 
of  it  with  scientific  nomenclatures,  experiments  and 
what  not ;  as  if  it  were  a  poor  dead  thing,  to  be 
bottled  up  in  Leyden  jars  and  sold  over  counters ; 
but  the  natural  sense  of  man,  in  all  times,  if  he 
will  honestly  apply  his  sense,  proclaims  it  to  be  a 
living  thing  —  ah,  an  unspeakable,  godlike  thing  ; 
towards  which  the  best  attitude  for  us,  after  never 
so  much  science,  is  awe,  devout  prostration  and 
humility  of  soul ;  worship,  if  not  in  words,  then  in 
silence."  * 

So  much  all  serious  minds  must  confess  when 
some  glimpses  of  the  majesty  and  the  wonder  of 
this  universe  are  vouchsafed  them.  Worship  they 
must  and  will ;  that  impulse  is  human  ;  to  stifle  it 
is  to  belie  our  nature. 

But  what  is  it  that  we  worship  ?  Is  it  Force, 
indeed?  Is  there  anything  in  any  manifestation 
of  physical  energy  that  calls  for  the  kind  of  feel- 
ing which  we  name  worship  ?  There  is  energy  in 
a  grain  of  gunpowder,  in  a  can  of  dynamite,  in  the 
steam  rushing  into  the  cylinder,  in  the  current 
speeding  from  the  dynamo ;  is  anything  there  that 
inspires  a  single  throb  of  worshipful  feeling? 
Multiply  force  of  this  kind  even  to  infinity; 
would  it  awaken  in  you  any  emotions  of  reveren- 
1  On  Heroes,  p.  242,  Universal  Edition. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  9 

tial  love  ?  No  ;  I  am  sure  that  we  are  not  and 
cannot  be  worshipers  of  mere  force. 

Nor  is  The  All  of  Things  an  object  of  worship. 
A  mere  aggregation  does  not  awaken  in  us  rever- 
ence. If  things  do  not  in  themselves  appeal  to  our 
veneration,  no  accumulation  of  them  could  do  so. 
Quantity  is  not  worshipful.  Neither  the  addition 
table  nor  the  multiplication  table  can  be  used  to 
stimulate  devotion. 

There  are  those  who  think  that  they  reverence 
The  All  —  who  call  themselves  Pantheists  ;  but  if 
they  do  so  it  is  by  investing  The  All  with  personal 
or  spiritual  qualities.  Thus  Strauss  declares  that 
he  worships  the  Cosmos  because  "  order  and  law, 
reason  and  goodness"  are  the  soul  of  it.  But  how 
reason  and  goodness  can  exist  apart  from  person- 
ality Strauss  has  never  explained  to  us. 

Another  very  brave  unbeliever  confesses  and 
maintains  that  those  who  have  rejected  the  doc- 
trine of  an  intelligent  and  beneficent  Creator  of 
the  world  are  obliged  to  hold  on  to  the  very  same 
truth,  under  their  belief  in  a  "  reasonable  tendency 
in  the  universe,"  and  their  "  faith  in  the  reality  of 
the  good."  Neither  science  nor  virtue  can  exist, 
he  says,  unless  we  believe  both  these  things :  that 
the  universe  is  reasonable,  and  that  goodness  is 
the  fundamental  reality.  "  Now  is  not  this,"  he 
asks,  "  in  essence  just  the  same  condition  of  life 
as  that  represented  by  the  doctrine  of  the  benefi- 
cent and  intelligent  Creator  and  Governor  of  the 
world  ? "  It  is,  I  answer,  the  very  same  thing. 


10    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

For  reasonableness  and  goodness  are  not  physical 
but  psychical  qualities ;  you  cannot,  if  you  try  ever 
so  hard,  conceive  of  them  as  belonging  to  things  or 
to  systems  of  things :  they  belong  to  persons ;  and 
thus  the  fundamental  assumption,  on  which  all  sci- 
ence and  all  morality  rest,  is  identical  with  the  old 
doctrine  of  God. 

The  fundamental  premise  of  science  is  that  Na- 
ture is  rational ;  that  every  phenomenon  admits  of 
a  rational  explanation.  That  would  seem  to  be 
only  another  way  of  saying  that  the  Source  of  Na- 
ture is  a  Reason  akin  to  our  own.  The  spread  of 
knowledge  must  bring  us  into  closer  acquaintance 
with  this  eternal  Reason. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  points  onward 
to  a  day  when  many  should  run  to  and  fro,  and 
knowledge  should  be  increased.  We  seem  to  be 
living  in  the  morning  of  that  day.  The  spread  of 
intelligence  upon  the  earth  since  the  discovery  of 
America  and  the  invention  of  movable  types  is 
marvelous.  Within  the  memory  of  most  of  us  the 
opportunities  of  education  have  been  greatly  ex- 
tended. Multitudes  who  once  did  scarcely  more 
than  vegetate  are  now  learning  to  think.  It  is  a 
tremendous  peril  to  which  the  world  exposes  itself 
when  it  sets  so  many  people  to  thinking,  but  we 
have  risked  it  and  must  make  the  best  of  it.  The 
changes  which  are  taking  place  in  our  beliefs  about 
God  are  due  to  the  fact  that  a  great  many  people 
are  thinking  about  things  visible  and  invisible, 
trying  to  understand  them  and  to  make  them  agree 
with  one  another. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  11 

Men  have,  indeed,  always  been  thinking  about 
the  world  in  which  they  live  ;  they  have  known 
something,  and  have  speculated  much  and  won- 
dered more,  about  its  physical  features,  its  plains, 
mountains,  rivers,  seas,  the  clouds  in  its  skies,  the 
sun  that  lights  it  by  day,  and  the  moon  and  stars 
that  are  its  lamps  by  night.  The  shepherd  on  the 
lonely  Mesopotamian  pastures,  the  sailor  in  his 
frail  boat  crossing  the  inland  sea  or  coasting  along 
the  ocean's  shore,  had  many  thoughts  about  this 
world  and  its  surroundings,  about  the  shape  and 
size  of  it,  and  the  physical  forces  which  bear  rule 
upon  it.  But  modern  thought  about  the  world  is 
quite  unlike  that  ancient  way  of  thinking. 

In  the  first  place,  modern  thought  apprehends, 
in  some  measure,  the  fact  of  a  universe,  which  is  a 
word  the  meaning  of  which  none  of  the  philoso- 
phers of  ancient  times  could  have  comprehended. 
Our  common  apprehension  of  these  things  is  one 
that  would  have  overwhelmed  with  bewilderment 
and  confusion  Herodotus  or  Aristotle.  The  thought 
which  was  common  to  the  great  thinkers  of  the 
ancient  time,  and  to  the  men  who  wrote  the  Bible, 
was  that  this  earth  was  the  central  and  stable  plat- 
form of  the  Creation,  above  which  various  meteor- 
ological phenomena  appeared,  these  being  created 
and  set  in  motion  wholly  for  the  service  and  con- 
venience of  man.  Dante's  cosmogony  was  a  sam- 
ple of  the  explanations  which  ancient  thought  had 
given  to  the  phenomena  of  the  earth  and  the  hea- 
vens. "  With  the  advent  of  the  Copernican  astron- 


12    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

omy,"  says  Mr.  Fiske,  "  the  funnel-shaped  Inferno, 
the  steep  mountain  of  Purgatory,  crowned  with  its 
terrestrial  paradise,  and  those  concentric  spheres 
of  Heaven  wherein  beatified  saints  held  weird  and 
subtle  converse,  all  went  their  way  to  the  limbo 
prepared  for  the  childlike  fancies  of  untaught 
minds,  whither  Hades  and  Valhalla  had  gone  be- 
fore them.  In  our  day  it  is  hard  to  realize  the 
startling  effect  of  the  discovery  that  man  does  not 
dwell  at  the  centre  of  things,  but  is  the  denizen  of 
an  obscure  and  tiny  speck  of  cosmical  matter  quite 
invisible  amid  the  innumerable  throng  of  flaming 
suns  that  make  up  our  galaxy." 1  Modern  thought 
about  the  extent  and  vastness  of  the  universe  in 
which  we  live  thus  seems  to  differ  by  the  diameter 
of  immensity  from  the  thought  of  the  olden  time. 
The  world  in  which  the  ancients  supposed  them- 
selves to  be  living,  as  compared  with  the  universe 
in  which  we  know  ourselves  to  be  living,  was  as  a 
drop  of  water  to  the  ocean. 

In  the  second  place  modern  thought  differs  from 
the  thought  of  a  former  time  not  less  radically 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  universe  has 
come  into  being.  The  older  thought  regarded  cre- 
ation as  a  mechanical  process ;  things  were  made 
outright,  as  a  watchmaker  makes  a  watch.  The 
Creator  first  called  into  being  the  matter  of  which 
the  world  is  composed,  and  then  took  it  and  shaped 
it  into  the  various  forms  which  we  now  see  about 
us ;  heaping  up  the  mountains  and  scooping  out 
1  The  Destiny  of  Man,  pp.  14,  15. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  13 

the  valleys  by  the  fiat  of  his  might;  shaping  the 
crystals  by  an  act  of  volition  ;  creating,  by  the 
exertion  of  direct  power,  the  manifold  species  of 
living  things,  just  as  they  now  exist,  and  endowing 
them  with  reproductive  power,  so  that  each  should 
perpetuate  its  kind ;  making,  in  the  morning  of  the 
creation,  the  pine  and  the  oak  and  the  elm  and 
the  maple,  the  rose  and  the  lily  and  the  apple  and 
the  pear,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  plants  ;  the  horse 
and  the  ox  and  the  elephant  and  the  wolf  and  the 
zebra  and  the  giraffe  and  the  dog  and  the  sheep, 
and  all  the  rest  of  the  mammals ;  the  eagle  and  the 
robin  and  the  raven,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  birds  ; 
the  pickerel  and  the  trout  and  the  minnow,  and  all 
the  rest  of  the  fishes ;  the  bee  and  the  wasp  and 
the  butterfly,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  insects ;  mak- 
ing all  the  tribes  of  living  creatures,  just  as  we 
have  them  now,  stocking  the  earth  and  the  air  and 
the  waters  with  living  inhabitants  by  one  stu- 
pendous act  of  creative  power  ;  so  that  there  were 
just  as  many  kinds,  and  just  the  same  kinds,  of 
living  things  upon  the  earth  when  the  earth  was  a 
week  old  as  there  are  to-day,  —  more,  probably,  for 
there  are  certainly  some  skeletons  and  fossils  in 
our  museums  which  represent  races  that  are  no 
longer  in  existence.  This  is,  for  substance,  the 
thought  about  the  manner  in  which  the  world  and 
its  inhabitants  came  into  being  which  was  enter- 
tained by  thinkers  and  philosophers  until  a  very 
recent  date.  The  modern  world  is  not  thinking 
along  this  line  respecting  the  origin  of  the  world 


14    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

and  the  life  upon  its  surface.  The  beliefs  about 
the  method  of  creation  which  were  held  when  I 
was  a  boy  by  nearly  all  intelligent  men  are  not 
held  to-day  by  any  intelligent  man.  It  is  now 
known  as  well  as  anything  can  be  known  that  the 
earth  assumed  its  present  form  as  the  result  of 
forces  acting  through  long  aeons,  whose  action  we 
can  observe  and  measure  ;  how  the  rocks  were 
formed,  how  the  mountains  were  heaped  up,  how 
the  valleys  were  scooped  out,  we  know  as  well  as 
we  know  how  the  Brooklyn  Bridge  was  built ;  and 
we  know  that  the  work  was  going  on  for  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  years.  We  know  that  the  various 
tribes  of  life  have  passed  through  many  changes  of 
form  and  function ;  that  for  ages  on  ages,  these 
changes  have  been  going  on,  the  forms  of  life 
gradually  rising  from  the  lower  to  the  higher.  The 
record  is  written  in  the  rocks,  and  no  man  of  intel- 
ligence can  contradict  it.  The  progress  of  life  is 
from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the  more 
generalized  to  the  more  specific ;  and  there  is 
plenty  of  evidence  of  the  transformation  of  one 
species  into  another.  This  is  the  way  things  have 
come  to  be  what  they  are ;  they  are  linked  together 
genetically ;  what  has  taken  place  in  nature  was 
not  the  offhand  manufacture  of  all  created  things, 
but  their  gradual  becoming. 

This  way  of  thinking  about  things  has  become 
very  nearly  universal.  We  all  assume,  whenever 
we  begin  to  study  any  subject  in  science,  in  history, 
in  archaeology,  in  sociology,  that  one  thing  natu- 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  15 

rally  grows  out  of  another ;  that  the  life  of  one 
generation  is  closely  connected  with  the  life  of  the 
generations  that  have  preceded  it ;  that  languages, 
customs,  laws,  institutions,  are  products  of  develop- 
ment. It  is  this  mighty  thought  about  the  genetic 
relations  of  things  that  has  taken  possession  of  the 
mind  of  the  world.  It  is  before  this  thought  that 
the  modern  Christian  is  standing,  —  in  a  rather 
solicitous  state  of  mind.  What  can  he  do  with  it? 
Does  it  not  contradict  many  of  the  doctrines  which 
he  has  regarded  as  essential  to  faith  ?  Does  it  not 
assail  the  authority  of  the  Bible  ?  Does  it  not 
overthrow  the  entire  Christian  system  ?  So  some 
people  are  telling  him,  —  some,  I  regret  to  say, 
who  ought  to  be  in  better  business.  And  it  is  true 
that  if  the  authority  of  the  Bible  stands  or  falls 
with  its  scientific  inerrancy,  then  the  Bible  can  no 
longer  be  regarded  as  authority ;  and  that  if  to  be 
a  Christian  it  is  necessary  to  believe  that  the  world 
and  all  things  therein  were  created  out  of  nothing 
and  given  their  present  forms  in  144  hours,  no 
intelligent  man  can  be  a  Christian  any  longer. 

But  I,  for  one,  am  going,  in  spite  of  both  Mr. 
Ingersoll  and  Mr.  Moody,  to  believe  a  little  longer 
yet  that  the  Bible  is  worth  a  great  deal  to  man- 
kind, after  you  have  fully  recognized  the  fact  that 
it  is  not  an  authority  in  geology  and  astronomy ; 
and  that  one  may  be  a  Christian  without  denying 
any  of  the  well  established  facts  of  modern  science. 
I  am  going  to  maintain  that  the  intelligent  Chris- 
tian may  stand  in  the  presence  of  modern  thought, 


16    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLL)  DOCTRINES  ? 

and  accept  everything  that  has  been  proved  by 
science  or  history  or  criticism,  and  not  be  fright- 
ened at  all  by  any  of  it ;  firmly  believing  that  the 
great  verities  of  the  Christian  faith  will  still  re- 
main untouched. 

There  are  those  to  whom  the  doctrine  of  Evolu- 
tion seems  atheistic  ;  they  think  that  it  banishes 
God  from  the  universe.  But  the  atheism  is  not  in 
evolution  ;  it  is  in  the  man  who  insists  on  putting 
an  atheistic  interpretation  upon  it.  The  fool  can 
always  say  in  his  heart,  "  There  is  no  God ; "  he  said 
it  long  before  Darwin ;  he  said  it  with  a  persistent 
emphasis  in  the  days  when  the  old  deistic  concep- 
tion was  current  of  a  God  who  manufactured  a 
universe  out  of  hand  and  stocked  it  with  forces 
and  wound  it  up  and  set  it  running,  —  in  the  days 
when  the  conception  of  an  orderly  progress  in  the 
creation  had  scarcely  dawned  upon  the  human 
mind.  It  may  be  that  some  people  can  more  easily 
believe  in  a  God  who  only  now  and  then  visits  this 
world  to  interfere  in  a  miraculous  way  with  the 
working  of  the  laws  which  he  has  ordained;  for 
myself  I  find  it  easier  to  believe  in  one  who  is 
present  in  all  the  forces  of  nature,  revealing  him- 
self not  so  convincingly  by  occasional  interruptions 
of  the  order  as  by  the  order  itself. 

The  truth  is  that  modern  thought  is  conducting 
us  to  a  belief  in  God  which  comes  far  nearer  to 
knowledge  of  him  than  any  of  the  intellectual  pro- 
cesses of  the  past  ever  carried  us ;  and  that  it  is 
along  the  paths  which  Evolution  has  opened  to  us 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  17 

that  we  are  drawing  near  to  God.  The  first  dis- 
cussions of  this  doctrine  excited  much  alarm ;  it 
seemed  to  many  that  it  banished  God  from  his  uni- 
verse. The  fear  was  puerile.  The  child  who  looks 
upon  an  automatic  toy  may  imagine  that  it  is  self- 
moved  ;  the  mature  mind  knows  that  there  is  a 
hidden  force  that  moves  it.  Mr.  Darwin's  theory 
of  the  origin  of  species  was  an  explanation  of  the 
method  of  creation ;  it  did  not  attempt  to  account 
for  the  existence  of  those  primal  forces  and  ten- 
dencies under  whose  action  and  interaction  this 
work  of  development  went  on.  Under  that  theory 
it  was  still  necessary  to  say,  "  In  the  beginning, 
God."  The  last  words  of  this  first  great  treatise, 
"  The  Origin  of  Species,"  must  not  be,  forgotten : 
"There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with  its 
several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  by 
the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one ;  and  that 
while  this  planet  has  gone  cycling  on  according  to 
the  fixed  law  of  gravity,  from  so  simple  a  begin- 
ning endless  forms  most  beautiful  and  most  won- 
derful have  been  and  are  being  evolved." 

It  is  true,  however,  that  while  students  have 
been  busy  upon  the  minutise  of  evolution  —  study- 
ing fishes'  fins  and  birds'  wings  and  horses'  toes  — 
the  larger  implications  of  the  subject  have  been 
much  neglected ;  and  there  have  been  a  good  many 
among  them  who  could  not  see  the  woods  for  the 
trees.  Specialization  is  apt  to  develop  a  provin- 
cial mind ;  the  specialist  knows  his  own  province, 
but  is  skeptical  about  the  existence  of  others,  and 


18    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OP  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

has  no  knowledge  of  larger  relations.  But  since 
the  appearance  of  Mr.  Darwin's  essay  time  enough 
has  now  elapsed  to  enable  some  of  the  philosophers 
of  evolution  to  take  a  comprehensive  view  of  all 
the  facts  ;  and  as  the  returns  begin  to  come  in 
from  the  whole  field,  some  things  plainly  appear 
which  at  first  were  dimly  seen. 

It  would  be  interesting,  if  there  were  time,  to 
glance  at  some  of  the  conclusions  with  reference  to 
the  truth  of  theism  which  have  been  reached  in 
recent  years,  by  eminent  scientific  men  who  are 
not  theologians,  and  who  have  approached  the  sub- 
ject from  the  scientific  side. 

One  of  the  most  striking  of  these  testimonies 
was  that  of  George  John  Romanes,  the  eminent 
psychologist  and  zoologist,  whose  book,  written 
twenty  years  ago,  and  entitled  "  A  Candid  Exami- 
nation of  Theism  by  Physicus,"  is  the  strongest 
attack  that  I  have  ever  read  upon  the  ordinary 
proofs  of  the  divine  existence.  Mr.  Romanes, 
much  against  his  own  inclination,  had  convinced 
himself  that  the  evolutionary  doctrines  had  demol- 
ished all  those  proofs,  and  in  a  most  pathetic  con- 
fession he  declared  that  the  faith  in  which  his  soul 
had  reposed  from  his  childhood  was  gone  forever. 
But  Mr.  Romanes  kept  thinking,  and,  gradually, 
some  of  the  larger  implications  of  the  subject  be- 
gan to  appear  to  him.  He  was  compelled  to  revise 
the  arguments  by  which  he  had,  as  he  supposed, 
demolished  theism,  and  at  length  to  acknowledge 
that  they  were  fallacious,  and  that  evolution  had 


BELIEF  IN  GOD  19 

strengthened  rather  than  weakened  our  reasons  for 
believing  in  God. 

Our  own  John  Fiske  was  regarded  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win as  the  ablest  exponent  of  evolution  upon  this 
continent.  Mr.  Darwin  paid  Mr.  Fiske  the  com- 
pliment of  saying  that  he  was  the  clearest  writer 
on  philosophical  subjects  that  he  had  ever  read. 
In  the  earlier  years  of  his  evolutionary  studies  Mr. 
Fiske  was  reserved  in  the  expression  of  his  opin- 
ions respecting  the  theological  bearings  of  evolu- 
tion. But  in  recent  years,  since  he  has  had  time 
to  assemble  and  organize  the  results  of  his  inves- 
tigations, his  utterances  have  been  increasing  in 
clearness  and  positiveness.  Those  two  little  books, 
"  The  Destiny  of  Man  "  and  "  The  Idea  of  God," 
have  been  a  veritable  evangel  to  many  groping 
minds.  And  that  other  small  volume,  lately  pub- 
lished, "  Through  Nature  to  God,"  is  much  more 
important  than  anything  he  has  hitherto  said. 

In  the  report  which  I  am  now  trying  to  bring  to 
you  upon  the  latest  phases  of  theism,  I  can  do 
you  no  greater  service  than  to  give  you,  briefly, 
and  largely  in  my  own  words,  an  outline  of  the 
argument  of  the  concluding  essay  of  this  book  on 
"  The  Everlasting  Reality  of  Religion." 

The  argument  starts  with  the  Spencerian  defini- 
tion of  life  as  "  the  continuous  adjustment  of  inner 
relations  to  outer  relations."  "  The  most  funda- 
mental characteristic  of  living  things,"  says  Mr. 
Fiske,  "  is  their  response  to  external  stimuli.  If 
you  come  upon  a  dog  lying  by  the  roadside  and 


20    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

are  in  doubt  whether  he  is  alive,  you  poke  him  with 
a  stick.  If  you  get  no  response,  you  presently 
think  that  it  is  a  dead  dog.  So,  if  a  tree  fails  to 
put  forth  leaves  it  is  an  indication  of  death.  Pour 
water  on  a  drooping  plant  and  it  shows  its  life  by 
rearing  its  head ;  this  is  the  result  of  a  continuous 
'adjustment  of  relations  within  the  plant  to  relations 
existing  outside  of  it.  ...  All  life  upon  the  globe, 
whether  physical  or  psychical,  represents  continued 
adjustment  of  inner  to  outer  relations."  1 

The  lungs  and  the  atmosphere  are  fitted  for 
each  other ;  the  stimulus  of  the  vital  air  from  with- 
out, received  by  the  lungs  within,  is  the  momen- 
tary and  constant  condition  of  life.  The  food  of 
the  gardens  and  the  fields  is  adapted  to  our  diges- 
tive organs,  and  our  organs  are  adjusted  to  the 
stimulus  of  the  food,  and  the  adjustment  must  be 
continuous.  A  striking  instance  of  this  biological 
adjustment  is  the  evolution  of  the  eye.  In  Mr. 
Fiske's  words,  "  there  was  first  a  concentration  of 
pigment  grains  in  a  particular  dermal  sac,  making 
that  spot  particularly  sensitive  to  the  light ;  then 
came,  by  slow  degrees,  the  heightened  translucence, 
the  convexity  of  surface,  the  refracting  humors,  and 
the  multiplication  of  nerve  vesicles  arranging  them- 
selves as  retinal  rods.  And  what  was  the  result 
of  all  this  for  the  creature  in  whom  organs  of  vision 
were  thus  developed  ?  There  was  an  immense  ex- 
tension of  the  range,  complexity,  and  definiteness 
of  the  adjustment  of  inner  relations  to  outer  rela- 
1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  178-180. 


BELIEF  IN   GOD  21 

tions.  In  other  words  there  was  an  immense  in- 
crease of  life.  Then  came  into  existence,  more- 
over, for  those  with  eyes  to  see  it,  a  mighty  visible 
world  that  for  sightless  creatures  had  been  virtually 
non-existent."  1 

The  organs  of  touch  and  taste  and  hearing  have 
been  developed  in  precisely  the  same  way.  In  all 
these  cases  we  clearly  see  how  the  forms  of  the  life 
within  have  been  shaped  to  receive  the  gifts  of  the 
world  without.  The  evolution  of  the  eye,  as  we 
see  it  going  on,  is  a  process  of  preparation  for  the 
great  revelation  that  is  to  be  made,  by  and  by,  of 
the  visual  glory  of  the  universe.  It  is  because 
there  are  waiting  outside  skies  and  fields  and  flow- 
ers and  gems,  wonders  of  form  and  color,  faces 
beautiful  with  the  light  of  a  deathless  love,  that 
the  eye  is  slowly  rounded  into  form.  It  is  be- 
cause the  sound  of  many  waters,  and  the  caroling 
of  birds,  and  the  music  of  mighty  symphonies,  and 
the  thrilling  tones  of  loving  voices  are  seeking  to 
reveal  themselves  to  the  waiting  soul,  that  the  ear 
is  formed  for  hearing.  Nay,  it  is  in  and  by  the 
very  action  of  the  elements  without  that  these  fac- 
ulties within  are  summoned  into  being.  It  is  the 
light  softly  playing  on  those  sensitive  pigments 
that  assembles  the  tissues  by  which  the  eye  is 
formed.  It  is  by  the  waves  of  sound  gently  beat- 
ing upon  the  rudimentary  ear,  and  saying,  "  Let 
us  come  in,  and  bring  our  music  with  us ! "  that 
the  ear  has  been  created.  The  age-long  process  by 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  p.  184. 


22     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

which  each  of  these  organs  has  been  shaped  is  a 
clear  witness  to  the  reality  of  some  wondrous  gift 
that  is  coming  into  the  life  by  means  of  it.  We 
know  when  we  see  such  an  organ  growing  that 
there  is  some  precious  commerce  on  the  ocean  of 
existence  for  which  it  is  to  be  the  port  of  entry. 
The  existence  of  such  an  organ  or  faculty  is  the 
sign  of  some  vital  correlation  between  the  life 
within  and  the  world  without. 

Take  this  fundamental  law  of  the  evolution  of 
life,  and  apply  it  to  the  life  of  humanity.  From 
the  dawn  of  love  in  human  life,  the  impulse  to  wor- 
ship, to  pray,  to  believe  in  an  unseen  world  has 
found  constant  expression.  Religion  is  one  of  the 
great  factors  of  human  history.  And  the  religious 
life  of  the  race,  Mr.  Fiske  tells  us,  has  always  in- 
volved these  three  elements:  belief  in  a  quasi- 
human  God,  in  a  future  life,  and  in  some  relation 
between  conduct  here  and  happiness  hereafter.  By 
a  quasi-human  God  is  meant  a  God  between  whom 
and  ourselves  there  can  be  relations  of  knowledge 
and  affection ;  whose  kinsmen  we  are  ;  who  knows 
us  and  loves  us.  "  As  a  matter  of  history,"  says 
Mr.  Fiske,  "  the  existence  of  a  quasi-human  God 
has  always  been  an  assumption,  or  postulate.  It  is 
something  which  men  have  all  along  taken  for 
granted.  It  probably  never  occurred  to  any  one  to 
try  to  prove  the  existence  of  such  a  God  until  it 
was  doubted  ;  and  doubts  on  that  subject  are  very 
modern.  Omitting  from  the  count  a  few  score  in- 
genious philosophers,  it  may  be  said  that  all  man- 


BELIEF   IN   GOD  23 

kind  —  the  wisest  and  the  simplest  —  have  taken 
for  granted  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  or  deities,  of 
a  psychical  nature  more  or  less  similar  to  that  of 
humanity.  .  .  .  Such  a  postulate  has  formed  a  part 
of  all  human  thinking  from  primitive  ages  down  to 
the  present  time."  1 

Here,  then,  is  the  fact  of  religion.  And  what 
are  the  dimensions  of  this  fact?  "  None  can  deny," 
says  Mr.  Fiske,  "  that  it  is  the  largest  and  most 
ubiquitous  fact  connected  with  the  existence  of 
mankind  upon  the  earth."  2  The  greatest  fact  of 
human  history  —  the  most  influential  fact  —  is 
this  universal  belief  in  an  unseen  world  and  in  a 
God  who  is  the  Father  of  our  spirits.  It  is  this 
fact,  which  evolution,  through  countless  ages,  has 
been  producing.  The  same  process  of  development 
by  which  the  eye  and  the  ear  were  formed  has 
evolved  this  universal  human  tendency  to  reach 
out  toward  an  unseen  world,  to  feel  after  God,  if 
haply  we  may  find  him. 

If,  now,  this  universal  hunger  for  a  God  whom 
we  can  know  and  love,  this  hunger  which  evolu- 
tion has  taken  so  many  centuries  to  develop,  is  a 
hunger  which  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe  to 
satisfy ;  if  the  spiritual  eye  has  been  developed, 
through  ages  of  human  experience,  that  it  may 
gaze  upon  vacancy,  fixing  its  piteous  appeal  upon 
the  blackness  of  darkness  forever,  then  all  that  is 
fundamental  in  the  philosophy  of  evolution  is  dis- 
credited and  set  at  naught. 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  163,  164.  2  Ibid,  p.  189. 


24    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

"  If  the  relation  thus  established,"  says  Mr. 
Fiske,  "  in  the  morning  twilight  of  Man's  existence, 
between  the  Human  Soul  and  a  world  invisible  and 
immaterial,  is  a  relation  of  which  only  the  subjec- 
tive term  is  real  and  the  objective  term  is  non- 
existent, then  I  say  it  is  something  utterly  without 
precedent  in  the  whole  history  of  creation.  All 
the  analogies  of  evolution,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  decipher  it,  are  overwhelming  against  any 
such  supposition.  .  .  .  All  the  analogies  of  nature 
fairly  shout  against  the  assumption  of  such  a 
breach  of  continuity  between  the  evolution  of  man 
and  all  previous  evolution.  So  far  as  our  know- 
ledge of  nature  goes,  the  whole  momentum  of  it 
carries  us  onward  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Un- 
seen World  as  the  objective  term  in  a  relation  of 
fundamental  importance  that  has  coexisted  with 
the  whole  career  of  Mankind,  has  a  real  existence  ; 
and  it  is  but  following  out  the  analogy  to  regard 
the  unseen  world  as  the  theatre  where  the  ethical 
process  is  destined  to  reach  its  full  consumma- 
tion." i 

These  final  words  of  this  strong  thinker  put  to 
silence,  as  with  the  blast  of  a  mighty  trumpet,  the 
small  cavils  of  a  generation  of  sciolists  :  — 

"  The  lesson  of  evolution  is  that  through  all 
these  weary  ages  the  human  soul  has  not  been 
cherishing  in  Religion  a  delusive  phantom  ;  but,  in 
spite  of  seemingly  endless  groping  and  stumbling, 
it  has  been  rising  to  the  recognition  of  its  essential 

1  Page  91. 


BELIEF   IN  GOD  25 

kinship  with  the  ever-living  God.  Of  all  the  im- 
plications of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  with  regard 
to  Man,  I  believe  the  very  deepest  and  strongest 
to  be  that  which  asserts  the  everlasting  reality  of 
religion."  1 

Here  we  may  rest  our  argument.  I  am  sure 
that  we  have  found  some  reason  for  believing  that 
whatever  may  have  happened  to  the  other  doctrines 
of  religion,  the  foundation  of  it  all  standeth  sure. 

Have  there  been  no  changes,  then,  in  our  doc- 
trine of  God  ?  Yes,  there  have  been  many  changes. 

In  the  first  place,  the  arguments  which  men  used 
to  employ  to  prove  the  existence  of  God  are  not 
now  relied  on  so  much  as  they  used  to  be ;  science 
has  greatly  weakened  the  force  of  some  of  them ; 
but  it  has  given  us  in  their  stead  that  broader 
argument  which  we  have  just  been  considering. 

In  the  second  place,  our  view  of  the  character  of 
God  has  greatly  changed.  We  do  not  think  and 
say  the  same  things  about  Him  that  we  used  to 
think  and  say.  We  do  not  try  to  explain  all  his 
thoughts  and  feelings  and  purposes  so  much  as  we 
used  to  do.  We  have  more  perfectly  learned  what 
the  Psalmist  meant  when  he  said,  "  Clouds  and 
darkness  are  round  about  Him."  We  know  that 
Infinite  Being  must  contain  depths  that  the  plum- 
met of  our  understanding  cannot  fathom. 

One  hundred  years  ago,  even  fifty  years  ago, 
men  had  very  definite  statements  to  make  about 
God's  moral  government.  They  thought  that  they 
understood  it  all  perfectly ;  they  seemed  to  think 

1  Page  191. 


26     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

that  it  was  substantially  like  one  of  our  political 
governments,  and  was  founded  on  just  the  same 
kind  of  expediencies  as  those  on  which  our  govern- 
ments rest.  What  would  be  politic  for  an  earthly 
ruler,  they  argued,  God  must  do.  Out  of  that 
conception  a  great  many  notions  sprung  which 
were  altogether  crude  and  unworthy.  The  doc- 
trines of  retribution,  the  doctrines  of  forgiveness, 
which  rested  on  this  forensic  conception,  have 
largely  passed  away. 

But  while  many  of  the  childish  and  inadequate 
notions  about  God  are  disappearing  from  human 
thought,  belief  in  Him  as  our  Heavenly  Father, 
as  the  Infinite  Love  which  is  behind  all  law,  has 
not  been  shaken  in  the  minds  of  reasonable  men. 
There  never  was  an  hour  when  so  many  men  could 
say  from  the  heart,  "  I  believe  in  God,  the  Father 
Almighty,  Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth ;  "  there 
was  never  an  hour  when  this  belief  was  bulwarked 
by  such  an  accumulation  of  scientific  knowledge. 
It  is  a  very  shallow  philosophy  which  imagines  that 
the  one  subject  in  which  human  beings  have  al- 
ways been  more  deeply  interested  than  in  any  other 
can  be  dismissed,  as  mere  superstition,  by  the  wave 
of  an  orator's  hand ;  or  that  men  are  likely,  very 
soon,  in  the  presence  of  this  majestic  universe,  to 
cease  to  wonder  or  to  worship  before  the  Power 
that  has  called  it  into  existence.  For  one,  I  firmly 
believe  that  modern  thought  is  laboriously  build- 
ing up  a  foundation  for  our  faith  far  more  firm 
and  broad  than  that  on  which  men  rested  their  souls 
in  what  were  known  as  the  ages  of  faith. 


BELIEF   IN   GOD  27 

The  arguments  which  men  were  using  fifty  years 
ago  to  prove  the  existence  of  God  all  embodied 
profound  truth,  but  in  the  light  of  modern  science 
they  need  restatement.  In  an  ordaining  council 
I  once  heard  the  question  put  to  a  young  man 
whose  mind  was  alive  with  the  movement  of  the 
time,  what  he  thought  about  Paley's  argument  for 
theism.  "  Oh,  it  was  all  very  well  for  its  day," 
he  answered;  "it  called  attention  to  some  indica- 
tions of  purpose  in  the  creation  ;  but  the  proofs  of 
purpose  which  have  been  shown  us  since  by  such 
writers  as  Darwin  and  Tyndal,  and  Huxley  throw 
all  that  exhibit  into  the  shade."  The  venerable 
examiners  looked  at  one  another  in  blank  amaze- 
ment. They  understood  not  the  saying,  but  the 
candidate  had  told  them  the  exact  truth.  The  tele- 
ology of  modern  science  is  far  more  cogent  than 
that  of  Paley's  generation. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  we  shall  ever  have 
scientific  demonstration  of  the  existence  of  God. 
God  is  a  spirit,  and  our  deepest  knowledge  of  Him 
must  be  spiritual  rather  than  scientific.  But  the 
more  complete  is  our  scientific  knowledge  the 
stronger  will  be  the  probability  of  the  existence  of 
God.  Surely  if  God  is  in  his  world,  He  must  be 
revealing  himself  to  us  in  all  its  laws  and  forces, 
and  therefore  all  ordered  knowledge  of  the  world 
must  be  bringing  Him  nearer  to  our  thought,  and 
every  science  must  be  tributary  to  that  great  uni- 
fying revelation  wherein  faith  and  knowledge  are 
no  longer  twain,  but  one. 


II 

HOW  THE  WORLDS  WERE  MADE 

IN  the  preceding  chapter  we  considered  the  rela- 
tion of  Evolution  to  the  belief  in  God,  showing  how 
the  old  theistic  arguments  have  been  modified  and 
strengthened  by  the  discovery  that  creation  is  the 
result,  not  of  an  instantaneous  fiat,  but  of  a  contin- 
uous process.  Inasmuch  as  the  changes  which  have 
taken  place  within  the  past  fifty  years  in  our  theo- 
logical statements  have  mainly  resulted  from  the 
prevalence  of  evolutionary  theories,  it  may  be  well 
to  examine  a  little  more  fully  the  significance  of 
the  doctrine  of  Evolution.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel  we  find  a  doctrine  of  origins  whose 
philosophy  is  not  yet  antiquated :  "  In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made 
through  him,  and  without  him  was  not  anything 
made  that  hath  been  made."  "  Word  "  in  the 
Greek  is  Logos  ;  it  has  a  double  signification :  it 
means  both  thought  and  expression,  the  idea  and 
its  symbol.  The  Greeks,  therefore,  came  to  use 
Logos  as  primarily  denoting  the  eternal  Reason, 
and  secondarily  the  utterance  or  manifestation  of 


HOW  THE  WORLDS   WERE  MADE  29 

that  Reason.  Of  course  thought  must  exist  before 
expression.  When,  therefore,  we  are  told  that  in 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  the  truth  is  brought 
before  us  that  the  universe  originated  in  thought ; 
that  the  foundation  of  it  all  is  in  the  eternal  Rea- 
son. And  this  is  the  constant  assumption  of  modern 
science.  Science  could  not  proceed  a  single  step 
but  for  the  belief  that  that  which  it  is  investigating 
is  intelligible  ;  that  it  is  possible  to  understand  it ; 
that  it  is  grounded  upon  reason  ;  that  an  intelli- 
gence, similar  to  our  intelligence,  has  established 
the  order  and  law  which  it  expects  to  find  in 
every  process.  The  universe  is  reasonable  ;  it  is 
in  harmony  with  reason  ;  it  can  be  made  intelligi- 
ble to  reason  ;  it  must  have  originated  in  the  eternal 
Reason.  This,  I  say,  is  the  fundamental  postulate 
of  all  scientific  investigation  ;  any  scientific  man 
stultifies  himself  if  he  denies  it ;  it  is  no  more  pos- 
sible to  get  away  from  it  than  it  is  to  get  away 
from  your  shadow ;  and  the  whole  mighty  accumu- 
lation of  scientific  knowledge  is  one  harmonious 
and  unanimous  testimony  to  the  truth  that  the  uni- 
verse is  intelligible.  How  it  could  be  intelligible 
if  it  had  not  originated  in  Intelligence  I  defy  any 
man  to  explain. 

If,  therefore,  any  one  supposes  that  evolution 
has  undermined  the  doctrine  of  an  intelligent  Au- 
thor of  the  Universe,  he  cannot  too  soon  rid  him- 
self of  that  notion.  There  are  those,  no  doubt, 
who  imagine  that  evolution  has  somehow  supplanted 
God ;  that  there  is  some  kind  of  an  abstraction  or 


30    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

apparatus  called  evolution,  which  has  neither  mind 
nor  will,  which  originated  planlessly,  which  works 
on  in  an  haphazard  way,  and  which  by  an  infinite 
series  of  hits  and  misses  has  brought  forth  the  uni- 
verse as  it  now  exists.  There  are  scientific  men 
with  an  anti-theological  bias  so  strong  that  they 
are  often  inclined  to  use  language  which  squints  in 
this  atheistic  direction.  But  sound  thinking  gives 
no  room  for  any  such  conceptions.  As  I  have  said 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  there  never  was  a  time 
when  the  belief  in  creative  intelligence  had  so 
much  proof  to  support  it  as  it  has  to-day.  The 
doctrine  of  evolution,  instead  of  weakening  the 
faith  in  God  of  all  those  who  have  studied  it  pro- 
foundly, has  given  to  many  of  them  their  strongest 
reasons  for  believing  in  an  all-wise  God. 

What,  then,  is  the  doctrine  of  evolution  ?  The 
word  signifies  unfolding,  or  opening  out.  The  un- 
rolling of  a  map  is  an  evolution.  The  opening  of 
a  flower  bud  is  an  evolution.  The  term  would 
therefore  itself  appear  to  suggest  some  previous 
process  of  thought  or  activity.  What  is  unfolded 
must  first  have  been  enfolded  ;  what  is  unrolled 
must  first  have  been  rolled.  Evolution  implies  in- 
volution. The  process  which  we  are  watching  must 
have  been  prepared  for  beforehand.  But  without 
putting  any  stress  on  this  mere  verbal  argument, 
let  us  ask  what  evolution  means  in  the  large  sense 
of  the  word,  —  the  sense  in  which  it  is  most  fre- 
quently used. 

"  To  the  scientific  world,"  says  the  professor  of 


HOW  THE  WORLDS   WERE  MADE  31 

biology  in  Wooster  University,  "  evolution  is  a  uni- 
versal law  of  nature,  whereby  the  existing  order  of 
things  in.  the  visible  universe  as  viewed  by  man, 
including  man  himself,  has  come  into  its  present 
state  of  existence  through  the  interaction  of  certain 
forces  operating  in  the  direction  of  a  progressive 
change  from  some  unknown  primitive  condition  of 
things.  To  the  Christian  the  same  thought  might 
be  expressed  by  saying  that  evolution  is  the  divine 
mode  of  creation,  whereby  God  has  wrought  out 
the  existing  order  of  things  through  the  continu- 
ous operation  of  his  creative  power."  These  two 
definitions,  as  I  understand  them,  are  only  different 
ways  of  expressing  the  same  truth. 

The  real  question  is  whether  the  world  as  we  see 
it  to-day,  with  the  different  kinds  of  animals  and 
plants  upon,  it  was  created  in  the  beginning  just  as 
it  now  is,  or  substantially  as  it  now  is,  making 
allowance  for  such  changes  as  man  himself  has 
wrought ;  or  whether  only  a  few  forms  of  life  were 
originally  created,  and  whether  these  forms,  by 
virtue  of  the  forces  with  which  they  were  endowed, 
and  by  their  action  upon  one  another,  and  the 
reaction  of  their  environment  upon  them,  have 
brought  forth,  in  a  long  series  of  gradual  changes, 
the  multitudinous  forms  of  life  that  now  appear. 
Was  it  true  that  in  the  morning  of  the  creation, 
when  the  world  came  forth  from  the  fiat  of  the 
Creator,  the  same  plants  and  the  same  animals 
existed  upon  the  earth  as  those  which  now  exist ; 
that  the  pine  and  the  oak  and  the  beech  and  the 


32    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

birch  and  the  rose  and  the  myrtle  and  the  daisy 
and  the  goldenrod  and  the  wheat  and  the  maize 
and  all  the  rest  of  the  plants  which  we  now  have 
were  then  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  ;  and  that  the 
animals  which  we  now  know,  or  at  least  the  wild 
animals  and  birds  and  fishes  and  insects,  were  of 
the  same  orders  and  species  as  those  which  now 
exist  upon  the  earth  ?  Or,  if  perchance  the  exist- 
ing kinds  of  plants  and  animals  were  not  all 
created  then,  in  their  present  forms,  have  they 
been  created  outright  since,  in  successive  periods, 
and  placed  upon  the  earth  ? 

In  answering  this  question  one  or  two  facts  come 
at  once  into  clear  light.  It  is  certain  that  the 
earth  itself  is  a  very  different  planet  from  what 
it  was  in  the  beginning.  Evidences  of  changes, 
mighty  changes,  through  which  it  has  been  passing, 
abound  on  every  hand.  I  presume  that  there  are 
still  many  persons  who  are  in  the  habit  of  conceiv- 
ing that  the  world  as  we  see  it  to-day  is  substan- 
tially the  same  as  it  has  always  been ;  that  the  Crea- 
tor, at  the  beginning,  mapped  out  the  continents 
and  the  oceans  and  the  gulfs  and  the  straits  and 
the  islands ;  that  it  was  the  Creator's  finger  that 
literally  drew  the  course  of  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Nile  and  the  Amazon  and  the  Mississippi,  from 
their  sources  to  the  sea ;  that  it  was  the  Creator's 
hand  that  heaped  up  the  mountains  and  the  little 
hills  and  scooped  out  the  valleys ;  that  laid  the 
masonry  of  the  gigantic  cliffs  of  the  Yosemite  and 
the  Lauterbrunnen  Thai;  that  manufactured  the 


HOW  THE   WORLDS  WERE  MADE  33 

coal  and  stowed  it  away  under  the  hills  of  the 
Hocking  valley  and  the  Appalachian  chain.  Of 
course  it  is  true  that  all  this  has  been  done  by  the 
Creator's  power  ;  but  the  notion  to  which  I  refer 
is  that  these  features  of  the  earth  took  their  pre- 
sent form  as  the  immediate  result  of  a  creative 
fiat.  And  I  dare  say  that  there  are  many  good 
people  to  whom  the  denial  of  this  theory  would 
seem  a  dangerous  kind  of  skepticism.  But  it  is 
certainly  a  fact  which  no  fairly  intelligent  person 
can  question  that  the  present  form  of  the  earth  is 
the  result  of  a  long  series  of  physical  changes. 
"  It  probably  existed,"  says  the  professor  whom  I 
have  already  quoted,  "  for  millions  of  years  as  a 
separate  planet,  before  water  condensed  upon  its 
surface,  and  it  is  clearly  demonstrated  that  it  has 
existed  for  other  millions  of  years  since  that  time. 
During  this  period  there  has  been  in  operation 
a  constant  process  of  progressive  change,  whereby, 
through  the  operation  of  natural  agencies,  such  as 
water,  atmosphere,  heat  and  cold,  and  chemical 
affinity,  the  surface  of  the  earth  has  been  differen- 
tiated from  a  barren  expanse  of  uniform  character 
to  the  present  varied  features  of  land  and  water, 
continents  and  islands,  lakes  and  rivers,  forests 
and  prairies,  and  beneath  the  surface,  rocks  and 
metals,  coal  and  gas,  and  so  on  throughout  the 
long  list  of  natural  products  fitted  for  the  use  of 
man,  —  one  of  the  most  striking  evidences  of  har- 
monious design,  and  yet  so  conclusively  shown  to 
have  come  into  its  present  form  through  the  opera- 


34    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

tion  of  the  law  of  progressive  change  that  no  intel- 
ligent person  would  venture  to  affirm  that  it  was 
all  created  by  an  omnipotent  fiat  in  the  form  in 
which  we  now  find  it.  The  very  agencies  that 
have  wrought  it  all  out  may  be  readily  observed 
to-day  under  our  very  eyes  continuing  the  process. 
If  any  one  doubts,  for  example,  that  the  coal  beds 
represent  a  gradual  accumulation  of  vegetation,  let 
him  go  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  and  see  the 
process  in  operation.  If  any  one  doubts  that  such 
vast  accumulations  of  rock  as  the  Trenton  lime- 
stone under  our  very  feet  have  been  built  up  from 
the  secretions  of  animal  life,  involving  necessarily 
an  untold  lapse  of  time,  let  him  go  to  the  islands 
of  the  Pacific  and  examine  the  process  where  it  is 
now  open  to  his  observation.  In  short,  any  one 
who  studies  carefully  and  in  detail  the  teachings 
of  geology  must  be  convinced  that  the  earth  has 
come  into  its  present  condition  through  a  gradual 
process  of  progressive  changes  ;  in  other  words, 
that  it  has  been  created  by  evolution,  from  a  rela- 
tively primitive  condition." 

That  the  world  itself  was  made  in  this  way  we 
do  positively  know ;  does  not  this  furnish  us  some 
pretty  good  reasons  for  believing  that  the  tribes 
which  inhabit  the  earth  have  come  into  being  in 
the  same  way  ?  When  we  find  such  a  stupendous 
illustration  as  this  of  the  Creator's  method,  is  it  not 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  all  his  work  of  creation 
is  done  upon  the  same  plan  ? 

But  the  earth  itself  contains,  in  the  close-locked 


HOW  THE  WORLDS  WERE  MADE  35 

archives  of  its  rocky  crust,  other  and  even  more 
conclusive  evidences.  I  said  that  the  question 
before  us  really  is  whether  the  species  now  exist- 
ing were  created,  in  their  present  forms,  in  the 
beginning.  That,  as  I  well  remember,  was  the 
view  which  was  presented  to  me  in  my  boyhood ;  I 
learned  to  believe  that  all  the  living  things  round 
about  me  were  called  into  existence  by  the  fiat  of 
the  Creator,  in  their  present  forms ;  and  that  every 
form  of  life  to  which  existence  was  given  in  the 
birth-morning  of  the  creation  was  still  living  upon 
the  earth.  But  the  record  in  the  rocks  makes  it 
plain  that  thousands  upon  thousands  of  species 
once  existed  which  no  longer  exist,  and  gives  us 
the  strongest  reasons  for  believing  that  most  of  the 
forms  now  existing  are  of  comparatively  recent 
origin.  It  is  as  plain  as  anything  can  be  that  con- 
stant changes  in  the  forms  of  living  beings  have 
been  taking  place  through  all  the  age-long  record 
of  the  earth.  And  it  is  easy  for  us  to  trace  the 
history  of  some,  at  least,  of  the  forms  now  existing, 
and  to  show  how  they  have  been  modified  from  age 
to  age.  The  fossil  remains  of  plants  and  animals 
in  the  rocks  exhibit  to  us,  as  Professor  Mateer  has 
told  us,  the  following  facts  :  — 

"  1.  The  species  of  animals  and  plants  now 
living  have  only  existed  upon  the  earth  for  a  com- 
paratively short  time,  geologically  speaking. 

"  2.  While  the  earliest  records  of  life  upon  the 
earth  have  probably  all  been  obliterated,  yet  the 
earliest  that  have  been  preserved  in  fossil  remains 


36    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

are  all  lower  in  grade  of  organization  than  their 
related  forms  now  living. 

"  3.  There  has  gradually  taken  place  all  through 
the  geological  ages  a  constant  extinction  of  old 
species  and  a  constant  appearance  of  new. 

"  4.  The  new  species  thus  constantly  appearing 
usually  mark  an  advance  over  the  older  species 
preceding  them. 

"  These  are  the  facts.  What  is  their  signifi- 
cance ?  They  indicate  a  progressive  change,  and 
therefore  suggest  the  presence  of  an  organic  evolu- 
tion." 

The  cumulative  proof  of  this  great  process  is,  of 
course,  too  vast  to  be  even  hinted  at  in  this  brief 
discourse.  Not  only  the  fossils  in  the  rocks,  but 
the  distribution  of  living  species  over  the  earth 
gives  evidence  of  this,  and  comparative  anatomy, 
which  shows  us  the  close  resemblances  of  living 
creatures,  and  the  minute  gradations  by  which  dif- 
ferent species  shade  into  each  other,  indicating 
that  the  higher  may  have  grown  out  of  the  lower, 
adds  its  testimony.  Most  striking  of  all  is  the  evi- 
dence from  embryology,  in  that  prenatal  history 
of  man  of  which  the  Psalmist  knew  very  little,  but 
of'  which  he  spoke  very  reverently,  as  we  all  ought 
to  speak :  — 

"  I  will  give  thanks  unto  Thee,  for  I  am  fearfully  and  won- 
derfully made. 

Wonderful  are  thy  works,  and  that  my  soul  knoweth  right 
well. 

My  frame  was  not  hidden  from  thee 


HOW  THE   WORLDS  WERE  MADE  37 

When  I  was  made  in  secret 

Aud  curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth. 

Thine  eyes  did  see  my  imperfect  substance, 

And  in  thy  book  were  all  my  members  written, 

Which  day  by  day  were  fashioned 

When  as  yet  there  was  none  of  them." 

Every  living  creature,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  begins  its  existence  as  a  single,  undiffer- 
entiated  cell.  The  mighty  elm,  whose  branches 
shadow  an  acre,  was  at  first  only  a  little  winged 
seed,  a  single  germ,  which  fell  into  the  ground,  and 
then  began  the  process  of  evolution  which  brought 
forth  the  majestic  tree.  The  stateliest  and  the  most 
powerful  of  the  animals  was,  in  the  beginning,  a 
single  undifferentiated  cell,  and  the  same  thing 
is  equally  true  of  man.  Says  Professor  Drum- 
mond :  — 

"  The  embryo  of  the  future  man  begins  life,  like 
the  primitive  savage,  in  a  one-roomed  hut,  a  single 
simple  cell.  This  cell  is  round  and  nearly  micro- 
scopic in  size.  When  fully  formed  it  measures 
only  one  tenth  of  a  line  in  diameter,  and  with  the 
naked  eye  can  be  discerned  as  a  very  fine  point. 
An  outer  covering,  transparent  as  glass,  surrounds 
this  little  sphere,  and  in  the  interior,  embedded  in 
protoplasm,  lies  a  bright  globular  spot.  In  form, 
in  size,  in  composition,  there  is  no  apparent  differ- 
ence between  this  human  cell  and  that  of  any 
other  mammal.  The  dog,  the  elephant,  the  lion, 
the  ape,  and  a  thousand  others  begin  their  widely 
different  lives  in  a  house  the  same  as  man's.  At 

86983 


38    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

an  earlier  stage,  indeed,  before  it  has  taken  on  its 
pellucid  covering,  this  cell  has  affinities  still  more 
astonishing.  For  at  that  remote  period  the  earlier 
forms  of  all  living  things,  both  plant  and  animal, 
are  one.  It  is  one  of  the  most  astounding  facts  of 
modern  science  that  the  first  embryonic  abodes  of 
moss  and  fern  and  pine,  of  shark  and  crab  and 
coral  polyp,  of  lizard,  leopard,  monkey,  and  man 
are  so  exactly  similar  that  the  highest  powers  of 
mind  and  microscope  fail  to  trace  the  smallest  dis- 
tinction between  them."  1 

But  the  most  astonishing  fact  is  that  each  of 
these  forms  of  animal  life,  as  it  is  developed  from 
the  cell,  takes  on,  one  after  another,  the  different 
forms  of  the  lower  orders.  There  are  stages  in 
the  development  of  a  man  when  he  cannot  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  worm,  other  stages  when  his 
structure  is  identical  with  that  of  the  fish ;  others 
when  you  cannot  distinguish  him  from  a  reptile 
like  the  frog,  others  when  he  takes  the  form  of  a 
bird,  and  so  on ;  in  the  rapidly  passing  stages  of 
his  earlier  history  he  is  identified  in  shape,  and 
apparently  in  substance,  with  one  after  another  of 
his  humbler  fellow  creatures.  "  In  man,  as  in  the 
fish,"  says  Professor  Kingsley,  "  the  heart  is  at 
first  two-chambered ;  then  it  becomes  three-cham- 
bered, as  in  the  lower  reptiles,  and  later  it  devel- 
ops the  four-chambered  condition,  which  it  retains 
through  life.  In  the  blood  vessels  are  the  same 
gill  arteries  as  in  the  frog  or  shark,  running  in  the 

1  The  Ascent  of  Man,  p.  62. 


HOW  THE   WORLDS   WERE   MADE  39 

same  direction  and  uniting  to  form  the  same  dorsal 
aorta.  There  is  the  same  tendency  to  form  gill 
slits  upon  the  side  of  the  neck,  and  in  exactly  the 
same  manner,  as  outgrowths  from  the  throat  to- 
ward the  external  skin.  Later  the  blood  vessels 
change  ;  the  gill  slits  close  up,  all  except  the  first, 
which  persists  as  the  Eustachian  tube,  connecting 
the  throat  with  the  inner  ear.  After  a  time  the 
distinctively  mammalian  features  become  more 
prominent,  and  then  comes  a  time  when  no  one  can 
decide  between  two  embryos  which  is  that  of  a  dog 
and  which  that  of  man.  Later  the  two  can  be  dis- 
tinguished, but  still  that  of  man  and  that  of  a  mon- 
key show  no  differences,  that  of  man  presents  so 
many  monkey-like  features."  l  These  facts  of  the 
embryonic  history  of  man  are  as  well  established 
as  any  facts  in  science.  And  when  we  consider 
them  well,  and  couple  them  with  what  we  know  of 
the  slow  and  gradual  processes  by  which  the  earth 
has  been  formed,  and  with  what  we  have  learned 
from  the  fossils  in  the  rocks  respecting  the  pro- 
gressive changes  in  the  tribes  of  living  creatures,  it 
certainly  does  not  seem  incredible  that  the  method 
of  creation  has  been  the  method  of  evolution  ;  that 
the  different  orders  of  living  beings  are  genetically 
related;  that  the  higher  have  sprung  from  the 
lower ;  that  all  things  that  have  life  are  our  fellow 
creatures  by  the  strongest  of  all  bonds. 

There  are  very  few  geologists,  and  still  fewer 
biologists,  who  to-day  dispute   this  great  fact  of 
1  Johnson's  Cyclopadia,  art.  "  Evolution." 


40    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

evolution.  There  are  a  few,  but  they  do  not  re- 
present the  great  body  of  scientific  students.  In 
truth  this  conception,  that  all  things  "  consist,"  to 
use  Paul's  phrase,  that  the  present  is  the  child  of 
the  past,  that  genetic  relations  are  to  be  looked  for 
everywhere,  has  come  to  rule  all  our  thinking ;  the 
evolutionary  idea,  the  evolutionary  logic,  finds  ex- 
pression in  all  our  serious  conversation  ;  we  are  all 
evolutionists  in  the  habit  of  our  minds,  even  when 
we  are  not  aware  of  it.  "  Great  scientific  discov- 
eries," says  a  very  orthodox  theologian,  "  are  not 
merely  new  facts  to  be  assimilated  ;  they  involve 
new  ways  of  looking  at  things.  And  this  has  been 
primarily  the  case  with  the  law  of  evolution, 
which,  once  observed,  has  rapidly  extended  to 
every  department  of  thought  and  history,  and 
altered  our  attitude  towards  all  knowledge.  Or- 
ganisms, nations,  languages,  institutions,  customs, 
creeds,  have  all  come  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of 
their  development,  and  we  feel  that  to  understand 
what  a  thing  really  is,  we  must  examine  how  it 
came  to  be.  Evolution  is  in  the  air.  It  is  the 
category  of  the  age  ;  a  '  partus  temporis,'  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  our  wider  field  of  comparison. 
We  cannot  place  ourselves  outside  it,  or  limit  the 
scope  of  its  operation."  l 

The  question  about  evolution  which  has  been 

most  hotly  disputed  respects  not  the  fact,  but  the 

mode.     Mr.  Darwin  undertook  to  show  us  not  only 

that   it   is  in  progress,  but  how  it  goes  forward, 

1  J.  R.  Illingworth,  in  Lux  Mundi,  p.  151. 


HOW  THE   WORLDS  WERE  MADE  41 

what  is  the  law  of  its  operation.  His  theory  of 
natural  selection,  which  I  cannot  now  stop  to  ex- 
plain, has  been  challenged  by  many  naturalists. 
Undoubtedly  it  explains  much  ;  but  it  does  not 
explain  everything.  And  when  the  scientific  peo- 
ple undertake  to  tell  us  what  it  is  that  has  wrought 
all  these  wonders,  and  precisely  how  it  works,  they 
sometimes  get  beyond  their  depth.  There  is  very 
likely  to  be  more  in  earth,  as  well  as  in  heaven, 
than  their  philosophy  finds  room  for.  They  do 
not  succeed  in  explaining  the  beginnings  of  life ; 
the  wisest  of  them  do  not  try.  Mr.  Darwin  as- 
sumes that  life  was  here,  in  the  world,  in  a  few 
simple  forms,  at  the  beginning ;  he  assumes  that 
the  Creator  breathed  life  into  these  forms ;  he  only 
tries  to  show  how  the  life  thus  originated  has  been 
multiplied  and  modified.  Respecting  this  process 
there  is  much  that  we  do  not  know.  But  one  or 
two  things  seem  to  be  evident. 

The  first  is  that  these  original  germs,  out  of 
which  so  much  has  come,  must  have  been  endowed 
with  wonderful  potencies  and  powers.  When  we 
see  what  a  marvel  of  majesty  and  beauty  can  come 
forth  from  the  minute  germ  of  the  acorn  or  the 
maple  seed,  we  get  a  slight  impression  of  the  poten- 
tialities of  life.  The  evolution  reveals  the  miracle 
of  the  involution.  Creation  is  far  more  wonderful 
when  we  think  of  all  this  manifold  life  of  the  world 
as  having  been  originally  packed  away  in  a  few 
simple  forms,  to  be  drawn  forth  thence  in  the  slow 
progress  of  the  ages,  than  when  we  imagine  each  of 


42    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

the  forms  we  know  as  having  been  bidden  into 
existence  by  an  infinite  fiat. 

But  there  is  something  more  in  this  process  than 
the  potentialities  that  the  germs  contain.  The 
forces  of  life  are  there  in  the  germs  ;  but  all  theo- 
ries of  evolution  agree  that  the  changes  which 
take  place  in  them  are  largely  influenced  by  the 
environment.  It  is  what  surrounds  these  growing 
things  and  acts  upon  them  that  largely  shapes 
their  development.  It  is  this  feature  of  the  evo- 
lutionary doctrine  which  has  been  regarded,  I  sup- 
pose, as  especially  materialistic  and  dangerous. 
If  the  action  and  reaction  of  the  environment 
upon  the  life  accounted  for  nearly  everything, 
there  seemed  to  be  little  room  left  for  a  control- 
ling purpose.  But  a  deeper  thought  disposes  of 
this  misgiving.  What  is  this  environment  ?  What 
is  the  one  word  that  describes  this  all  encompass- 
ing Power  which  encircles  every  living  thing  ?  We 
say  that  it  is  Nature,  but  it  is  truer  to  say  that  it 
is  God.  It  is  a  natural  world,  in  every  force  of 
which  God  is  immanent.  He  who  endowed  these 
germs  with  their  marvelous  potencies  surrounds 
them  also  with  an  environment  in  every  part  of 
which  He  is  always  present.  It  is  this  idea  of  an 
immanent  God  which  makes  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution not  only  rational,  but  sublimely  religious. 
And  it  is  modern  science  which  has  forced  upon 
us  this  conception.  "  The  one  absolutely  impossi- 
ble conception  of  God  in  the  present  day,"  says  a 
modern  theologian,  "  is  that  which  represents  Him 


HOW  THE   WORLDS   WERE   MADE  43 

as  an  occasional  visitor.  Science  had  pushed  the 
deist's  God  farther  and  farther  away,  and  at  the 
moment  when  it  seemed  that  He  would  be  thrust 
out  altogether,  Darwinism  appeared,  and,  under 
the  disguise  of  a  foe,  did  the  work  of  a  friend.  It 
has  conferred  upon  philosophy  and  religion  an 
inestimable  benefit  by  showing  us  that  we  must 
choose  between  two  alternatives.  Either  God  is 
everywhere  present  in  nature,  or  He  is  nowhere. 
He  cannot  be  here  and  not  there.  He  cannot  del- 
egate his  power  to  demigods  called  '  second  causes.' 
In  nature  everything  must  be  his  work  or  nothing. 
We  must  frankly  return  to  the  Christian  view  of 
direct  divine  agency,  the  immanence  of  divine 
power  in  nature  from  end  to  end,  the  belief  in  a 
God  in  whom  not  only  we,  but  all  things  have  their 
being,  or  we  must  banish  Him  altogether.  It  seems 
as  if,  in  the  providence  of  God,  the  mission  of 
modern  science  was  to  bring  home  to  our  unmeta- 
physical  ways  of  thinking  the  great  truth  of  the 
divine  immanence  in  creation,  which  is^,  not  less 
essential  to  the  Christian  idea  of  God  than  to  a 
philosophical  view  of  nature."  l 

Consider  these  facts.  Modern  science  has  made 
it  impossible  to  think  of  the  universe  except  as 
a  revelation  of  intelligence.  Its  fundamental  as- 
sumption is,  that  underlying  everything,  at  the 
foundation  of  all  existences,  is  thought,  is  reason. 

Modern  science  does  not  know  how  life  began, 
but  it   shows  us   life  developing  from  a  few  pri- 
1  Lux  Mundi,  pp.  97,  98. 


44    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

mary  germs,  into  the  order  and  beauty  and  gran- 
deur of  this  marvelous  world.  Who  stocked  these 
germs  with  such  miraculous  powers,  who  packed 
into  them  the  potencies  that  have  unfolded  into 
the  life  that  now  fills  forest  and  field  and  air  and 
ocean,  that  builds  our  houses  and  throngs  our 
cities,  science  does  not  try  to  tell ;  it  puts  the 
mighty  fact  before  us  and  leaves  us  to  interpret  it. 

But  when  science  tells  us  that  these  living  things 
have  been  shaped  and  fashioned  in  their  growth  by 
their  environment,  we  cannot  help  pausing  to  think 
what  that  Environment  is ;  and  if  the  doctrine  of 
the  divine  omnipresence  is  true,  we  certainly  would 
not  wish  to  deny  what  science  affirms.  If  sur- 
rounding every  one  of  these  growing  lives  there  is 
an  Environment,  in  every  atom,  in  every  force  of 
which  the  mighty  God,  the  Lord,  the  Creator  of 
the  ends  of  the  earth,  resides  and  works,  and  if  all 
these  changes  are  the  results  of  the  direct  action  of 
his  wisdom  and  his  power,  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion is  a  most  impressive  demonstration  of  the  pre- 
sence of  God  in  the  world.  Let  me  close  with  a 
word  of  John  Fiske,  who  is,  perhaps,  the  most 
intelligent  American  expounder  of  this  theory  :  — 

"The  doctrine  of  Evolution,  which  affects  our 
thought  about  all  things,  brings  before  us  with  viv- 
idness the  conception  of  an  ever-present  God,  not 
an  absentee  God,  who  once  manufactured  a  cosmic 
machine  capable  of  running  itself  except  for  a 
little  jog  or  poke  here  and  there  in  the  shape  of 
a  special  providence.  The  doctrine  of  Evolution 


HOW   THE  WORLDS  WERE  MADE  45 

destroys  the  conception  of  the  world  as  a  machine. 
It  makes  God  our  constant  refuge  and  support, 
and  Nature  his  true  revelation ;  and  when  all  its 
religious  implications  shall  have  been  set  forth,  it 
will  be  seen  to  be  the  most  potent  ally  that  Chris- 
tianity has  ever  had  in  elevating  mankind." 


Ill 

WHAT   IS   THE   SUPERNATURAL? 

THE  chief  stumbling-block  of  reason  in  these 
days  is  found  in  the  conception  of  the  supernatu- 
ral. If  that  could  be  got  rid  of,  the  way  of  belief 
would  be  made  smooth  for  many  feet. 

The  researches  of  science  have  succeeded  in  es- 
tablishing on  so  firm  a  foundation  the  doctrine  of 
the  universality  and  immutability  of  law,  that  there 
seems  to  be  no  room  left  in  the  universe  for  the 
supernatural  or  the  miraculous.  A  writer  in  the 
"  Westminster  Review,"  several  years  ago,  used 
this  language  :  "  Anti-supernaturalism  is  the  final, 
irreversible  sentence  of  scientific  philosophy,  and 
the  real  dogmatist  and  hypothesis-maker  is  the 
theologian.  That  the  world  is  governed  by  fixed 
laws  is  the  first  article  in  the  creed  of  science,  and 
to  disbelieve  whatever  is  at  variance  with  those 
uniform  laws,  whatever  contradicts  a  complete  in- 
duction, is  an  imperative  intellectual  duty.  A  par- 
ticular miracle  is  credible  to  him  alone  who  already 
believes  in  supernatural  agency.  Its  credibility 
rests  on  an  assumption,  the  assumption  of  such 
agency.  But  our  most  comprehensive  scientific 
experience  has  detected  no  such  agency.  There 


WHAT  IS  THE  SUPERNATURAL?  47 

is  no  miracle  in  nature  ;  there  is  no  evidence  of 
any  miracle-working  agency  in  nature  ;  there  is  no 
fact  in  nature  to  justify  the  expectation  of  mira- 
cle." i 

Special  attention  may  be  called  to  this  manifesto 
as  a  good  sample  of  what  modern  science  is  not. 
Modern  science  does  not  make  dogmatic  state- 
ments of  this  kind.  It  does  not  say  of  any  propo- 
sition, "  This  is  the  final,  irreversible  sentence  of 
scientific  philosophy."  It  only  says,  So  far  as  the 
facts  have  been  collected  and  compared  they  bear 
this  interpretation.  To  assume  that  no  more  facts 
can  be  collected,  that  no  new  light  can  be  thrown 
upon  the  subject,  that  the  case  is  forever  closed, 
is  in  the  last  degree  unscientific.  With  John  Rob- 
inson, of  Leyden,  the  pastor  of  the  church  that 
landed  on  Plymouth  Rock,  science  always  expects 
more  light  to  break  forth  from  God's  works  as 
well  as  from  God's  word,  and  is  always  ready  to 
welcome  it.  There  is  considerable  of  this  kind  of 
dogmatism  —  sometimes,  as  in  this  case,  outspoken, 
sometimes  latent  and  implicit  —  in  the  utterances 
of  men  who  speak  as  the  oracles  of  science.  There 
is  far  less  of  it  than  there  was  twenty  years  ago, 
for  the  fact  is  plainer  than  once  it  was  that  the 
scientific  spirit  is  a  spirit  of  reverence  ;  but  when- 
ever we  fall  in  with  it  we  ought  to  remember  that 
men  who  talk  in  this  dogmatic  tone  are  not,  in  any 
true  sense  of  the  word,  scientific  men  ;  the  spirit 

1  Quoted  by  James  Freeman  Clarke,  in  Orthodoxy :  its  Truths 
and  Errors,  p.  81. 


48     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

which  speaks  through  their  lips  is  the  spirit  of  the 
old  theology,  masquerading  in  the  garb  of  science. 

Disputes  of  this  character  arise  largely,  however, 
from  a  failure  to  agree  upon  definitions.  What  is 
the  supernatural  ?  What  is  a  miracle  ?  If  these 
preliminary  questions  can  be  satisfactorily  an- 
swered, many  of  the  debates  will  come  to  an  end 
at  once.  Not  all  of  them,  but  many  of  them.  For 
there  are  radical  differences  of  theory :  there  are 
theologians  on  the  one  side  and  philosophers  on 
the  other  with  whom  I  cannot  agree,  and  who  cer- 
tainly cannot  agree  with  one  another.  The  more 
clearly  their  several  views  are  expressed,  the  more 
irreconcilable  will  seem  to  be  their  antagonism.  It 
is  not  possible  to  do  away  with  all  differences  of 
opinion.  But  the  number  of  differences  would  be 
considerably  reduced  if  the  contending  parties 
would  agree  upon  their  definitions. 

"  That  the  world  is  governed  by  fixed  laws," 
says  the  authority  I  have  quoted,  "  is  the  first  arti- 
cle in  the  creed  of  science."  What  is  meant  by  fixed 
laws  ?  Is  it  meant  that  everything  which  is  now 
taking  place  has  always  been  taking  place  and  will 
always  continue  to  take  place  ?  That  is  not  true. 
The  sun  is  rising  and  setting  now  every  twenty- 
four  hours  ;  but  it  has  not  always  been  rising  and 
setting,  and  nobody  can  prove  that  it  will  always 
rise  and  set.  Indeed,  no  careful  student  of  astron- 
omy pretends  to  believe  that  it  always  will. 
"  What  is  the  history  of  Nature,"  asks  Professor 
Fisher,  "  but  a  record  of  perpetual  changes,  —  new 


WHAT   IS  THE   SUPERNATURAL?  49 

beings,  new  phenomena,  and  new  collocations  of 
phenomena  presenting  themselves  on  the  scene  ? 
To  this  extent,  our  expectation  that  the  future  will 
be  like  the  past  is  subject  to  qualification."  1 

It  is  true  that  we  do  expect  that  the  same 
antecedents  will  be  followed  by  the  same  conse- 
quents. We  believe  that  water  will  solidify  next 
year  as  it  does  this  year  at  32°  Fahrenheit,  and  that 
it  will  become  vapor  at  our  altitude  at  212°.  We 
believe  that  the  specific  gravity  of  silver  will  con- 
tinue, through  the  centuries,  to  be  greater  than 
that  of  aluminum.  But  this  is,  in  truth,  not  know- 
ledge ;  it  is  faith,  —  what  Professor  Huxley  calls 
"  the  great  act  of  faith  "  that  every  student  of  sci- 
ence is  compelled  to  exercise,  and  on  which  all  his 
investigations  are  founded.  He  believes  that  like 
antecedents  will  be  followed  by  like  consequents. 
He  believes  in  a  reign  of  law.  That  these  laws  are 
so  fixed  that  they  can  never  be  altered  is,  however, 
a  piece  of  dogmatism  upon  which  he  does  not  ven- 
ture. 

Of  one  thing,  however,  the  student  of  science 
feels  very  sure,  and  that  is  that  there  is  a  reason 
for  everything  ;  that  there  is  no  process  and  no 
event  which  cannot  be  rationally  explained.  The 
universe  is  reasonable  —  this  is  the  foundation  of 
science.  But  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
saying  that  all  which  takes  place  in  the  world  is 
the  product  of  an  unalterable  mechanism.  The 
acts  of  a  wise  man  are  rational  and  can  be  ration- 
1  Faith  and  Rationalism,  p.  138. 


50    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

ally  explained ;  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  a  mere 
machine,  and  can  never  act  in  any  other  way  than 
the  way  in  which  he  does  act.  When  Mr.  Huxley 
says  that  "  the  progress  of  science  has  in  all  ages 
meant  and  now  means  more  than  ever  the  exten- 
sion of  the  province  of  what  we  call  matter  and 
causation,  and  the  concomitant  gradual  banishment 
from  all  regions  of  human  thought  of  what  we  call 
spirit  and  spontaneity,"1  he  makes  a  statement 
which  probably  expresses  the  bent  of  his  own 
mind,  but  which  does  not  express  the  real  ten- 
dencies of  scientific  thought  in  these  last  days. 
The  truth  is  that  there  is  just  now  a  strong  move- 
ment of  mind  toward  the  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  the  spiritual  side  of  life  is  quite  as  well  worth 
study  as  the  physical  side. 

With  these  preliminary  cautions  against  an  anti- 
theological  bias  which  is  not  any  more  rational  or 
scientific  than  the  theological  bias  of  the  church- 
man, let  us  come  directly  to  the  questions  before 
us. 

What,  then,  is  a  miracle  ?  The  common  notion 
is  that  it  is  a  violation  of  or  a  deviation  from  the 
laws  of  nature.  Here  is  the  law  of  gravitation. 
Some  force,  whose  nature  we  do  not  at  all  under- 
stand, but  whose  action  we  can  measure,  pulls  this 
book  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  downward  toward 
the  centre  of  the  earth.  If  the  action  of  this  force 
should  be  interrupted  or  suspended,  so  that  the 
book  had  no  weight,  but  remained  motionless  in 
1  Quoted  by  Bascom  in  The  New  Theology,  p.  65. 


WHAT  IS   THE   SUPERNATURAL?  51 

the  air,  with  no  support  under  it,  and  no  other  nat- 
ural force  counteracting  the  force  of  gravitation, 
that  would  be  a  miracle.  But  this  definition  of 
a  miracle  is  not  biblical ;  we  are  not  told  in  the 
Bible  that  natural  laws  are  ever  violated  or  sus- 
pended. The  biblical  term  for  miracle  is  either 
"  wonder "  or  "  sign."  The  events  called  mira- 
cles are  described  as  wonderful  works,  and  as 
signs  which  indicate  the  presence  of  God.  But 
many  things  are  wonderful  which  are  not  unnatu- 
ral. They  are  wonderful  to  us  because  they  are 
unusual,  or  because  we  do  not  understand  the  mode 
of  their  operation.  They  may  be  a  sign  to  us  of 
the  presence  of  some  one  with  knowledge  or  power 
that  we  do  not  possess.  The  old  church  fathers 
explained  miracles  as  being  in  harmony  with  na- 
ture, not  as  violations  of  nature.  Origen  assumed 
the  existence  in  nature  of  a  higher,  ideal,  divine 
order  of  which  the  miracle  was  the  expression. 
And  Augustine  says  expressly  that  "  a  miracle  is 
not  contrary  to  nature,  but  to  what  we  know  of 
nature."  Augustine  conceives  of  nature  as  wholly 
under  the  control  of  God,  and  argues  that  "  what- 
ever is  done  by  Him  who  appoints  all  natural  order 
and  measure  and  proportion  must  be  natural  in 
every  case." 

There  may  be  elements  and  forces  in  nature 
with  which  we  are  not  familiar.  Nothing  is  much 
nearer  to  us  than  the  air  we  breathe,  and  the  phy- 
sicists have  very  confidently  assumed  that  they 
knew  all  about  it ;  it  contained  so  much  oxygen 


52     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

and  so  much  nitrogen,  with  infinitesimal  amounts 
of  carbon  dioxid,  ammonia,  ozone,  and  organic 
matter ;  but  recently  a  new  substance,  never  before 
heard  of  or  dreamed  of,  has  been  detected  in  the 
air ;  "  argon,"  the  chemists  call  it.  Just  what  it 
is  good  for  nobody  seems  to  know  ;  it  seems  to  be 
a  kind  of  sleeping  partner,  the  unemployed  con- 
tingent in  the  atmospheric  society.  That  is  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  name  they  have  given  it, 
argon,  —  the  idler.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the 
chemists  have  wronged  him,  and  that  we  shall  yet 
find  out  that  he  is  a  very  busy  fellow  after  all.  I 
summon  him  here,  however,  only  in  support  of  my 
contention  that  we  may  have  a  great  deal  yet  to 
learn  about  the  most  common  elements  and  forces ; 
and  that  much  which  seems  to  us  miraculous  may 
be  only  the  employment  of  unfamiliar  powers. 

Many  of  the  things  that  are  the  merest  common- 
places to  us  would  seem  miracles  to  a  South  Sea 
Islander.  Those  people  from  Dahomey  in  the 
Midway  Plaisance  at  the  Columbian  Exposition 
were  seeing  wonders  and  signs  every  day  of  their 
stay  in  this  country. 

Not  only  by  our  knowledge  of  natural  forces  do 
we  learn  to  perform  mighty  works  which  appear 
miraculous  to  those  of  lower  intelligence,  there 
seems  also  to  be  a  degree  of  power  which  the  mind 
exerts  over  the  body,  a  supremacy  of  the  intellect- 
ual or  the  spiritual  over  the  material,  to  which  men 
are  capable  of  attaining,  and  by  means  of  which 
many  wonderful  things  are  done.  The  power  of 


WHAT  IS  THE   SUPERNATURAL?  53 

the  mind  to  influence  bodily  conditions  is  very 
great,  and  the  contagion  of  courage  and  hope  and 
determination  can  be  communicated  from  one  mind 
to  another.  Indeed,  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that 
health,  abounding  vitality,  is  not  in  some  degree 
contagious.  It  seems  to  me  that  virtue  does  some- 
times go  out  of  a  thoroughly  healthy  nurse  into  the 
body  of  an  enfeebled  patient.  That  there  is  such 
a  thing  as  a  physical  communication  of  vigor  may 
be  all  fancy ;  the  effect  may  all  be  wrought  by  the 
invigoration  of  the  mind  of  the  patient.  But 
these  experiences,  concerning  which  there  will  be 
no  dispute,  may  throw  some  light  on  what  are 
called  miracles  of  healing.  That  one  who  was  per- 
fectly whole,  in  body  and  in  mind,  and  whose  sym- 
pathetic identification  with  his  fellowmen  was  also 
perfect,  might  heal  many  diseases,  by  the  com- 
munication of  his  own  life,  I  can  easily  believe. 
That  Jesus  Christ  was  able  to  do  such  work  as 
this  does  not  seem  to  me,  in  view  of  what  I  believe 
him  to  have  been,  an  incredible  thing.  It  is  what 
I  should  expect  him  to  do.  But  this  kind  of  work 
was  not  done  by  any  violation  of  nature ;  it  was 
done  by  the  completion  and  perfection  of  nature  ; 
it  was  the  realization  of  that  word  of  his  which 
every  day  gathers  larger  meaning,  "  I  came  not  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfill." 

I  can  say  all  this  without  crediting  the  prepos- 
terous theories  of  Christian  Science  or  the  fairy 
tales  of  faith  cure.  These  stories  generally  bear 
upon  their  face  the  marks  of  absurdity.  Such 


54    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

powers  will  never  be  exercised,  except  by  people 
who  are  elevated  physically,  mentally,  and  spirit- 
ually to  a  very  high  estate  of  being ;  and  such 
people  will  not  be  vaunting  these  powers,  or  adver- 
tising themselves  in  the  newspapers,  or  turning 
their  exceptional  gifts  into  a  means  of  revenue  ; 
and  when  they  open  their  mouths  to  speak  to  us 
they  will  have  something  to  say  that  is  not  the 
quintessence  of  absurdity. 

To  miracles,  then,  considered  simply  as  wonder- 
ful works,  as  the  action  upon  nature  of  higher  in- 
telligences, or  as  the  employment  of  agencies  or 
laws  with  which  we  are  not  familiar,  there  can  be 
no  scientific  or  philosophical  objection.  The  man 
who  says, "  There  can  be  no  intelligence  possessing 
a  knowledge  of  nature  that  I  do  not  possess,"  or, 
"  There  can  be  no  natural  laws  or  processes  with 
which  I  am  not  familiar,"  does  not  speak  with  the 
humility  of  science. 

But  the  idea  of  the  supernatural,  it  is  objected, 
contradicts  the  fundamental  assumptions  of  sci- 
ence, and  therefore  there  is  an  overwhelming  pre- 
sumption against  it.  Dr.  Bascom,  who  does  not 
sympathize  with  this  objection,  has  nevertheless 
stated  it  very  clearly  :  — 

"  The  scientific  tendency,  later  in  its  develop- 
ment, leads  us  to  magnify  the  natural,  and,  in  its 
extreme  expression,  to  exclude  with  it  the  super- 
natural. The  terms  of  exact  knowledge  lie  chiefly 
in  physical  things  and  events,  bound  together  as 
causes  and  effects.  The  extension  of  these  rela- 


WHAT  IS   THE   SUPERNATURAL?  55 

tions  is  the  expansion  of  determinate  thought,  and 
all  the  successes  of  the  past  century  urge  us  to 
complete  the  work  by  giving  full  sweep  to  the 
ruling  idea.  This  movement  has  for  the  moment 
gathered  great  momentum,  and  those  who  wish  to 
put  any  restraints  upon  it,  or  supplement  it  by 
earlier  forms  of  inquiry,  are  easily  pushed  aside, 
or  looked  upon  as  having  scant  claims  even  to  this 
courtesy. 

"  While  there  have  been  many  secondary  points 
of  discussion  between  religion  and  science,  points 
at  which  science  has  been  more  frequently  in  the 
right,  the  real  difficulty  of  reconciliation  between 
the  two  methods  of  thought  is  found  in  this  very 
thing,  the  supernatural.  Science  has  an  instinc- 
tive disrelish  for  the  supernatural,  as  something  in 
whose  presence  its  own  methods  are  of  no  avail, 
something  from  whose  presence  there  goes  forth 
an  obscuring,  chilling  mist  of  uncertainty,  that 
brings  inquiry  speedily  to  an  end.  The  super- 
natural, instead  of  being  an  essential  term  in  a 
higher  order,  is  felt  to  be  a  loss  of  all  order  in 
chaos  and  confusion.  The  controversy,  therefore, 
between  science  and  religion,  our  knowledge  of  the 
physical  world  and  our  knowledge  of  the  spiritual 
world,  can  only  be  settled  by  a  just  definition  of 
the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  and  by  a  deter- 
mination of  their  dependence  on  each  other."  l 

What  then  is  meant  by  the  natural  ?  The  term 
describes,  in  the  first  place,  all  objects,  events,  pro- 
1  The  New  Theology,  pp.  75,  76. 


66    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

cesses,  phenomena,  which  are  related  to  each  other 
as  causes  and  effects.  "  It  covers,"  says  Dr.  Bas- 
com,  "  all  things  and  events  which  are  interlocked 
by  causal  relations,  —  phenomena  that  are  settled 
in  their  form  and  order  of  procedure.  Every 
purely  physical  occurrence  is  completely  condi- 
tioned by  coexistent  and  antecedent  circumstances, 
and  it  is  these  fixed  dependencies  which  constitute 
its  nature.  However  variable  this  nature  may 
seem  to  be,  the  appearance  is  deceptive,  for  all 
results  are  perfectly  defined  by  the  energies  in- 
volved." 1  This  is  the  common  signification  of  the 
natural,  as  contrasted  with  the  supernatural.  It 
describes  all  those  forces  which  are  covered  by  the 
law  of  the  conservation  of  energy.  The  natural 
realm,  as  the  scientific  mind  conceives  it,  is  the 
realm  that  is  governed  by  laws.  These  laws  are 
not  all  physical ;  there  are  certain  laws  of  mind, 
also ;  laws  of  association,  laws  of  resemblance,  laws 
of  thought.  It  is  too  much  to  say  that  these 
mental  laws  are  all  fixed  and  invariable.  But 
there  is,  beyond  all  question,  a  certain  order  in 
our  thinking  ;  and  we  can  often  discover  the  gene- 
sis of  our  thoughts.  Some  of  the  operations  of  the 
mind,  as  well  as  those  of  the  body  and  of  the  phy- 
sical world,  come  under  the  control  of  law. 

But  is  it  true  that  everything  that  happens  in 

this  world  is  the  outcome  of  these  unchangeable 

laws?     When  we  say  that  the  world  is  governed 

by  fixed  laws,  do  we  mean  that  these  laws  explain 

The  New  Theology,  p.  77. 


WHAT  IS  THE   SUPERNATURAL?  57 

every  event  that  takes  place  ?  If  we  do  mean  any 
such  thing  as  that,  we  are  talking  nonsense.  I 
will  show  you,  now,  an  event  that  cannot  be  ex- 
plained by  reference  to  any  natural  laws.  Here  is 
an  electric  light,  by  my  side  upon  this  desk.  It  is 
burning  now ;  the  process  is  going  on  under  natu- 
ral law,  —  a  law  which  I  will  not  stop  to  explain. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  whenever  you  have  the 
same  conditions  which  are  present  here,  the  same 
v/ires,  the  same  carbon  filaments,  the  same  adjust- 
ments, the  same  electric  currents,  you  will  have 
the  same  light.  So  far,  the  whole  process  is  under 
fixed  law.  But  is  there  any  fixed  law  which  deter- 
mines just  how  long  this  light  is  going  to  burn, 
and  just  when  it  is  going  to  stop  burning?  No, 
there  is  not.  I  think  that  it  will  stop  burning  now 
within  a  very  few  seconds  ;  but  no  law  is  going  to 
stop  it.  I  am  going  to  stop  it.  There  !  What 
natural  law  was  it  that  determined  when  that  lamp 
should  cease  to  glow  ?  It  was  my  free  will  that 
put  it  out.  I  might  have  put  it  out  several  sec- 
onds sooner,  or  several  seconds  later,  or  I  might 
have  chosen  not  to  put  it  out  at  all.  Now  I  pro- 
pose to  light  it  again.  If  everything  which  hap- 
pens in  this  world  is  controlled  by  fixed,  unchange- 
able laws,  then  the  moment  at  which  I  shall  light 
it  is  fixed,  and  can  be  predicted  by  one  who  knows 
all  the  forces  at  work.  Is  there  any  scientist  in 
this  room,  any  scientist  in  this  universe,  no  matter 
how  much  he  knows  about  electrical  currents,  and 
incandescent  lamps,  and  nervous  tissues,  and  mus- 


58    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

cular  contractions,  who  can  predict  the  second  at 
which  that  lamp  will  be  lighted  ?  I  think  not. 
It  will  be  lighted  when  I  get  ready  to  light  it. 
The  work  will  all  be  done  under  fixed  laws,  under 
the  laws  of  electricity,  and  the  laws  of  muscular 
contraction,  and  the  laws  of  the  transmission  of 
nervous  energy  from  the  brain  to  the  fingers ;  the 
action  of  the  lamp  is  under  fixed  law;  the  action 
of  my  body  is  under  fixed  law  ;  but  the  power  that 
sets  these  natural  forces  in  operation,  that  starts 
the  nerve  currents  in  motion  from  my  brain  to  my 
fingers,  and  that  thus  moves  the  muscles  of  my  fin- 
gers, and  turns  the  switch  and  kindles  the  light,  is 
the  power  of  a  free  personality  which  acts  upon 
this  chain  of  natural  causation,  initiating  new 
movements,  making  new  combinations,  bringing  to 
pass  many  things  which  these  fixed  laws  of  them- 
selves would  never  compass.  It  was  a  supernatu- 
ral power  which  extinguished  and  relighted  that 
lamp.  Every  free  personality  is  a  supernatural 
power.  It  is  not  under  fixed  law.  It  is  over  fixed 
law,  and  uses  fixed  law,  in  myriads  of  ways,  to 
accomplish  its  own  intelligent  purposes. 

Thought  is  a  supernatural  process.  There  are 
trains  of  ideas  passing  through  my  mind,  by  the 
laws  of  association  ;  but  I  can  command  this  pro- 
cession to  halt ;  I  can  take  one  of  these  ideas,  and 
fasten  my  attention  upon  it,  and  think  of  it  as  long 
as  I  will,  and  then  dismiss  it,  and  call  another. 
The  perfectly  healthy  mind  has  power  over  its 
own  trains  of  thought ;  it  is  only  the  enfeebled  or 


WHAT   IS  THE   SUPERNATURAL?  59 

diseased  mind  that  is  dominated  by  fancies  which 
it  cannot  dismiss.  The  power  of  thinking  is  the 
power  of  a  free  personality  which  is  not  driven  by 
mental  visions,  but  marshals  and  combines  them 
in  an  order  of  its  own  choosing. 

It  is  involved  also  in  what  has  been  said  that 
choice  is  a  supernatural  act.  The  very  word  im- 
plies this.  Choice  which  was  governed  by  fixed 
law  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms.  In  the 
realization  of  his  choices,  man  often  finds  himself 
unable  to  counteract  natural  laws,  but  the  choices 
themselves  are  supernatural.  "  Having,  thus,  free- 
dom and  the  power  of  causation,"  says  Dr.  Mark 
Hopkins,  "  there  is  a  sense  in  which  man  is  the 
image  of  God  as  a  creator.  Place  a  being  thus 
free,  having  the  power  of  causation,  and  with  in- 
telligence, in  the  midst  of  a  fixed  order  of  things, 
so  that  he  can  foreknow  what  the  consequences  of 
his  acts  will  be,  and  it  is  plain  that  he  can  pur- 
posely create  or  cause  to  be  a  future  that,  but  for 
him,  would  not  have  been.  Feeble  as  is  this  image 
of  the  creative  power  of  God,  it  yet  indicates  for 
man  a  place  in  this  universe  higher  than  that  of 
suns  and  stars.  He  is  not  wholly  as  the  driftwood 
on  the  stream  or  the  atom  in  the  whirlwind,  atom 
though  he  be,  but  he  has  a  will  that  goes  for  some- 
thing in  that  which  is  to  be."  1 

Love  in  its  highest  manifestations  is  super- 
natural. The  love  which  came  to  us  under  fixed 
law  we  should  not  highly  value.  The  kindness 

1  The  Scriptural  Idea  of  God,  p.  72. 


60    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

that  is  constrained,  the  devotion  that  is  compul- 
sory, are  not  the  expressions  of  love.  Love  is, 
indeed,  the  fulfilling  of  law ;  but  when  all  law  is 
fulfilled,  its  impulse  is  not  exhausted ;  it  is  still 
able  to  do  exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that  law 
can  ask  or  think.  Its  very  characteristic  is  that  it 
knows  no  limits  or  definitions.  Space  and  time  do 
not  condition  it ;  its  range  is  boundless,  its  life  is 
eternal. 

These  are  the  attributes  of  a  free  personality,  — 
thought,  choice,  love.  Wherever  you  find  these, 
you  find  something  that  is  not  under  fixed  law  ;  it 
is  simply  absurd  to  think  of  any  of  them  as  under 
the  dominion  of  fixed  law.  In  your  own  soul  are 
thought  and  choice  and  love.  You  cannot,  without 
stultifying  yourself,  say  that  you  do  not  believe  in 
the  supernatural.  You  yourself  are  a  supernatural 
being  ;  every  hour  of  your  life  you  are  employing 
supernatural  powers. 

This  search  of  man  for  the  supernatural,  and 
his  skepticism  concerning  it,  is  much  like  the  search 
of  the  fishes  for  the  sea  and  of  the  birds  for  the 
air  ;  the  supernatural  is  the  very  element  in  which 
his  manhood  lives  and  moves  and  has  its  being ; 
the  spirit  that  exists  in  the  image  of  God  the  crea- 
tor of  the  universe  could  hardly  be  other  than 
supernatural. 

We  find  very  few  persons  in  these  days  who  are 
ready  to  confess  themselves  atheists,  though  we  find 
many  who  are  troubled  with  doubts  about  the 
supernatural.  Some  devout  and  reverent  minds 


WHAT  IS   THE  SUPERNATURAL?  61 

confess  to  such  uncertainties.  Might  I  address  to 
such  persons  one  or  two  simple  questions  ?  You 
believe  in  God.  Is  not  God  supernatural  ?  Has 
the  Author  of  the  universe  no  power  over  the  uni- 
verse ?  Is  He  imprisoned  in  the  order  which  He 
has  himself  established  ?  Can  you  conceive  of  Him 
as  no  more  than  the  personification  of  Fate  ?  You 
know  that  you  are  a  free  personality  ?  If  He  is 
unfree,  is  not  the  creature  possessed  of  attributes 
nobler  than  the  Creator?  It  seems  to  me  that  we, 
as  free  moral  beings,  would  stultify  ourselves  if 
we  tried  to  worship  a  being  who  was  not  himself  a 
free  personality. 

That  God  is  a  supernatural  Power  will  hardly 
be  questioned,  I  dare  say,  by  any  of  us.  But  we 
saw,  in  the  last  chapter,  that  God  is  immanent 
in  nature.  "  God  dwelleth  within  all  things,  and 
without  all  things,  above  all  things,  and  beneath 
all  things,"  said  Gregory  the  Great.  "  The  imme- 
diate operation  of  the  Creator  is  closer  to  every- 
thing than  the  operation  of  any  secondary  cause," 
said  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  doctrine  of  the  imma- 
nence of  God  is  no  new-fangled  notion  ;  it  has  been 
held  by  great  thinkers  in  all  the  ages.  Now  if 
this  supernatural  Power  —  this  Being  who,  in  the 
words  of  Athanasius,  "  contains  all  things,  but  is 
contained  by  none  "  —  is  present  in  every  atom  and 
every  force  of  the  whole  creation,  then  Nature  her- 
self, in  her  inmost  being,  in  the  deepest  secrets  of 
her  life,  is  supernatural. 

"  Below  the  realm  of  mechanical  necessity,"  says 


62    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

Professor  Bowne,  "  there  is  a  realm  of  ends  which 
condition  and  control  that  necessity.  Here  nature 
is  fluid.  Here  are  the  roots  of  nature.  Here 
nature  appears,  not  as  an  independent  something, 
but  as  a  flowing  forth  of  divine  energy.  It  has  no 
laws  of  its  own  which  oppose  a  bar  to  the  divine 
purpose,  but  all  its  laws  and  all  its  ongoings  are 
but  the  expression  of  that  purpose.  .  .  .  Nature 
is  no  independent  power  over  against  God,  which 
must  first  be  conquered  before  it  can  be  modified ; 
it  is  only  the  divine  purpose  flowing  forth  into 
realization.  The  constancy  of  nature,  also,  must 
be  viewed  as  founded  not  in  some  mysterious  neces- 
sity, but  solely  in  the  constancy  of  the  divine  pur- 
poses. We  do  not,  then,  regard  the  supernatural 
in  its  ordinary  workings  as  breaking  through  phe- 
nomenal laws,  or  through  the  chain  of  mechanical 
necessity  which  is  supposed  to  rule  in  nature ;  but 
we  regard  it  as  founding  and  maintaining  that 
necessity  by  which  the  phenomenal  order  is  real- 
ized. .  .  .  We  teach  no  breaks  in  the  phenomenal 
order,  or  in  the  mechanism  of  nature,  but  rather 
that  that  mechanism,  in  all  its  phases,  is  pliant  to 
the  divine  purpose,  and  is  but  an  expression  of  the 
divine  purpose."  1 

No  mere  analogy  can  set  forth  the  truth  of  the 
relation  of  the  Creator  to  the  creation  ;  but  the 
relation  of  the  mind  to  the  body  may  give  us  some 
dim  suggestion  of  what  it  may  be.  My  mind  re- 
sides in  and  controls  at  every  instant  all  parts  of 
1  Studies  in  Theism,  pp.  315-317. 


WHAT  IS  THE   SUPERNATURAL?  63 

my  body,  and  is  yet  confined  not  within  its  mem- 
bers, but  ranges  free  through  space  and  time.  So 
the  divine  Intelligence  abides  in  and  reveals  itself 
through  the  whole  of  nature,  and  yet  is  not  con- 
tained in  nature,  nor  identified  with  it ;  for  it  is 
not  only  in  all  and  through  all,  it  is  also  over  all. 
The  immanent  God  is  also  the  transcendent  God. 
He  is  the  Power  that  energizes  nature,  He  is  also 
the  Father  of  our  spirits. 

It  is  not,  then,  in  miracle  that  God  is  most 
clearly  manifested ;  He  comes  closest  to  us  in  the 
deeper  meanings  of  the  commonest  facts  of  our 
lives.  In  the  air  we  breathe,  in  the  daily  bread 
that  nourishes  our  bodies,  in  the  sunshine  that 
warms  us,  in  the  blossoms  that  smile  upon  us,  — 
not  less,  perhaps,  in  the  frosts  and  blasts  and  rude 
resistances  of  nature  that  call  out  our  energies  and 
discipline  our  wills,  He  momently  reveals  himself 
to  all  who  have  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  "  Blessed 
are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God." 
They  have  not  far  to  look.  For  every  day  and 
everywhere  — 

"  The  Lord  is  in  his  Holy  Place, 

In  all  things  near  and  far, 
Shekinah  of  the  snowflake,  He, 

And  glory  of  the  star, 
And  secret  of  the  April  wind 

That  stirs  the  field  to  flowers, 
Whose  little  tabernacles  rise 

To  hold  him  through  the  hours." 

This  discussion  may  have  enabled  us  to  see  the 
truth  of  what  Dr.  Bascom  has  said  :  — • 


64    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

"  The  natural  and  the  supernatural  are  different 
sides  of  the  same  thing,  the  earthward  side  and 
the  heavenward  side,  the  outer  and  the  inner  side. 
When  we  walk  in  the  light  of  our  intuitions  and 
affections,  we  are  most  touched  by  a  sense  of  the 
divine  Presence ;  when  we  take  counsel  and  put 
our  hands  to  work  shrewdly  on  the  things  about  us, 
we  are  most  impressed  by  law,  by  stubborn  condi- 
tions, by  the  slowly  yielding  material  into  which 
human  and  divine  thoughts  transform  themselves. 
God  and  man,  if  they  are  to  meet  in  activity  at  all, 
and  the  overshadowing  attributes  of  the  one  feed, 
without  engulfing,  the  feeble  faculties  of  the  other, 
must  find  a  middle  term  which  shall  be  the  hiding 
of  the  divine  Presence  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
drawing  out  of  human  powers  on  the  other  side. 
Nature  is  such  a  middle  term.  God  here  meets  us, 
makes  terms  with  us,  gives  us  our  lessons,  and 
assigns  us  our  tasks."  1 

Let  us  meet  Him  here  with  docile  minds,  with 
reverent  hearts  ;  let  us  sit  at  his  feet  and  listen  to 
his  words  ;  let  us  take  his  yoke  upon  us  and  learn 
of  Him  ;  for  his  Spirit  waits  to  guide  us  into  all 
truth ;  and  to  know  Him  aright  is  life  eternal. 
1  The  New  Theology,  p.  90. 


IV 

WHAT   IS   THE   BIBLE? 

WE  have  a  letter  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  a  young 
man  in  whom  he  was  deeply  interested,  who  had 
been  his  traveling  companion  and  assistant  in  the 
ministry,  and  had  shared  with  him  the  hardships 
and  the  harvests  of  his  arduous  campaigns,  in 
which  are  these  words  :  — 

"Abide  thou  in  the  things  which  thou  hast 
learned  and  hast  been  assured  of,  knowing  of 
whom  thou  hast  learned  them ;  and  that  from  a 
babe  thou  hast  known  the  sacred  writings  which 
are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  through 
faith,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Every  scripture 
,inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  fur- 
nished completely  unto  every  good  work."  l 

This  is  good  counsel  for  young  men  in  these 
days,  and  for  those  no  longer  young.  In  our 
hands,  as  in  Timothy's,  there  are  sacred  writings 
which  we  have  known  from  our  infancy,  and 
which  are  able,  if  we  rightly  use  them,  to  make 
us  wise  unto  salvation.  The  sacred  writings  which 
i  2  Tim.  iii.  14-11 


66    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

are  familiar  to  us  are  not  identical  with  those 
upon  which  Timothy  had  been  brought  up :  we 
have  some  books  that  he  had  not,  and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  he  had  some  about  which  we  have 
not  much  knowledge,  in  which,  at  any  rate,  we 
have  not  been  instructed.  This  very  letter  to 
Timothy,  for  example,  which  has  been  to  us,  all 
our  lives,  a  sacred  writing,  was  not  so  regarded, 
I  dare  say,  by  the  young  man  who  received  it.  It 
was  just  a  letter  to  him  from  his  great  friend, 
Paul  the  Apostle  ;  that  he  very  highly  valued  it, 
there  can  be  no  doubt ;  that  he  received  the  words 
of  Paul  as  one  who  was  under  divine  guidance  is 
altogether  probable  ;  but  he  did  not  imagine  that 
this  letter  would  by  and  by  be  bound  up  with  those 
other  sacred  writings,  long  familiar  to  him,  to  be- 
come a  part  of  a  Bible  for  the  human  race.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  these  epistles  of  Paul,  or  any 
other  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  were  re- 
garded as  sacred  scriptures  on  their  first  appear- 
ance. They  were  carefully  preserved  by  those 
who  received  them,  and  in  the  course  of  fifty  or 
sixty  years  they  began  to  be  collected  and  quoted 
as  possessing  a  sacred  character ;  but  the  earliest 
Christian  fathers  do  not  refer  to  them  ;  when  they 
speak  of  sacred  scriptures  it  is  always  to  the  Jew- 
ish scriptures  that  they  are  referring.  It  was  of 
these  Jewish  scriptures,  of  course,  that  Paul  is 
here  speaking.  Timothy  could  not  have  been  in- 
structed in  the  New  Testament  scriptures,  for  in 
his  childhood  not  one  of  them  was  in  existence; 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE?  67 

and  those  of  them  that  were  in  existence  when 
Paul  wrote  this  letter  to  him  had  not  come  to  be 
considered  as  sacred  writings. 

But  I  said  that  Timothy  probably  had  certain 
writings,  regarded  as  sacred,  which  we  have  not. 
Undoubtedly  Timothy  possessed  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  this  version 
which  was  chiefly  used  by  our  Lord  and  his  apos- 
tles. We  know  this,  because  their  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  are  almost  always  taken  directly 
from  this  Old  Greek  Bible.  Out  of  thirty-seven 
quotations  made  by  our  Lord  from  the  ancient 
writings,  all  but  three  are  cited  word  for  word 
from  the  Septuagint.  Now  this  Septuagint  con- 
tained, along  with  the  books  of  our  Old  Testa- 
ment, those  other  books  which  we  have  separated 
from  it,  under  the  title  of  the  Apocrypha.  There 
is  evidence  in  the  epistles  that  these  writings 
were  familiar  to  their  authors,  for  there  are  quite 
a  number  of  unmistakable  allusions  to  them.  Tim- 
othy had,  then,  less  Bible  than  we  have  in  one 
part,  and  more  than  we  have  in  another.  Since 
Timothy's  day  not  a  little  has  been  added  to 
the  canon  of  sacred  scripture,  and  not  a  little  has 
been  taken  away,  by  Protestants,  at  least.  But 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  whatever  Paul  says,  in 
this  passage,  about  the  sacred  writings  as  a  whole, 
must  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  collection 
which  Timothy  had  in  his  hands.  Does  Paul  mean 
to  say  that  these  writings  are  all  inspired  of  God, 
and  therefore  infallible?  Does  he  make  this  state- 


68    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

ment  concerning  the  story  of  Susanna,  and  Bel  and 
the  Dragon,  and  Tobit,  and  the  rest?  Manifestly 
that  would  be  putting  upon  his  words  a  very  doubt- 
ful construction.  We  shall  be  obliged  to  use  his 
counsel  to  Timothy  with  some  caution.  What  can 
he  mean  when  he  says,  as  the  old  version  makes 
him  say,  "  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God  "  ?  The  answer  is  that  he  does  not  say  any 
such  thing.  The  new  version,  from  which  I  have 
quoted,  correctly  reports  him.  What  he  says  is 
that  every  scripture  which  is  inspired  of  God  is 
profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness.  Instead  of  attrib- 
uting inspiration  to  all  those  scriptures  which 
Timothy  had  in  his  hands,  he  simply  said  that 
every  inspired  scripture  was  profitable  reading. 
There  is  even  a  hint  in  these  words  that  they  are 
not  of  equal  value ;  that  the  quality  of  inspiration 
may  be  lacking  to  some  of  them.  When  this  text 
is  quoted  as  a  sweeping  statement  that  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  infallibly  inspired,  it  is 
grossly  misinterpreted.  Explained  in  this  way  it 
proves,  as  we  have  seen,  a  great  deal  too  much. 

Nevertheless  it  is  true  that  Paul  does  refer  to 
the  scriptures  in  Timothy's  hands,  and  that  he 
does  strongly  commend  them  to  him  as  the  sources 
of  wisdom  and  inspiration.  If  Paul's  language 
concerning  them  is  much  less  sweeping  and  ex- 
travagant than  it  is  generally  supposed  to  be,  it  is 
still  cordial  and  positive.  It  does  not  forbid  us  to 
use  our  common  sense  in  judging  these  old  scrip- 


WHAT  IS  THE   BIBLE?  69 

tures,  but  it  does  most  earnestly  counsel  us  to  use 
them,  and  bids  us  expect  to  find  in  them  the  illu- 
mination of  our  thought  and  the  invigoration  of  our 
manhood.  They  may  not  be  infallible,  but  they 
are  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation  through 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus. 

I  wish  that  I  could  get  from  all  readers  of  this 
chapter  the  same  open-minded,  sympathetic,  rever- 
ent treatment  of  the  Bible  that  Paul  expected  from 
Timothy.  But  in  order  that  this  may  be,  it  is  ne- 
cessary that  their  minds  should  be  cleared  of  mis- 
conceptions and  illusions.  The  Bible  as  it  is  can 
"  do  for  us  exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that  we 
ask  or  think ; "  but  in  order  that  it  may  render  to 
us  its  highest  and  best  service  we  must  take  it  for 
what  it  is,  and  not  entertain  any  false  notions 
about  it.  The  old  English  theologian  who  is 
known  to  history  as  "  the  judicious  Hooker  "  gives 
us  this  word  of  caution  :  "  As  incredible  praises 
given  to  men  do  often  abate  and  impair  the  credit 
of  the  deserved  commendation,  so  we  must  like- 
wise fake  great  heed  lest  by  attributing  to  Scrip- 
ture more  than  it  can  have,  the  incredibility  of 
that  do  cause  even  those  things  which  it  hath 
abundantly  to  be  less  reverently  esteemed."  1  Ex- 
aggerated and  false  ideas  of  the  Bible  are  sure 
to  breed  infidelity  in  inquisitive  and  independent 
minds.  When,  by  impartial  investigation,  men 
convince  themselves  that  the  Bible  is  not  such  a 
book  as  it  has  been  represented  to  be,  their  natural 

1  Works,  Book  II.,  chap.  viii.  7. 


70    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

impulse  is  to  regard  it  as  a  fraud  and  to  cast  it 
aside  altogether.  I  think  that  this  is  the  precise 
history  of  a  very  large  proportion  of  those  who 
have  rejected  Christianity.  The  sin  and  the  crime 
of  driving  men  from  the  doors  of  the  church  are  to 
be  charged  very  largely  upon  the  religious  teach- 
ers who,  with  the  light  of  this  decade  blazing  all 
around  them,  continue  to  make  statements  about 
the  Bible  which  a  very  little  careful  study  of  the 
Bible  itself  will  prove  to  be  untrue. 

In  view  of  all  this  erroneous  and  highly  mis- 
chievous teaching,  it  is  necessary  to  begin  by  clear- 
ing the  ground.  The  first  thing  that  we  need  to 
learn  is  what  the  Bible  is  not. 

It  is  not  an  infallible  book.  Where  men  got 
the  idea  that  it  is  infallible  we  may  not  be  sure ; 
certain  it  is  that  they  did  not  get  it  from  the  Bible 
itself.  No  such  claim  can  be  found  anywhere  upon 
the  pages  of  the  Bible.  Not  one  of  the  writers 
asserts  his  own  infallibility. 

Probably  the  theory  of  inerrancy  is  founded  on 
what  is  called  an  a  priori  argument.  Men  said  : 
"The  Bible  is  the  Book  of  God.  If  God  gives 
us  a  book,  it  must  be  infallible.  That  is  to  be  as- 
sumed beforehand.  For  God  is  omniscient ;  He  can 
make  no  mistakes,  and  therefore  we  know  that  He 
could  permit  no  mistakes  to  find  their  way  into  his 
Book." 

Now  this  way  of  determining  beforehand  what 
God  will  do  is  rather  venturesome.  A  good  many 
years  ago,  a  certain  very  famous  Bishop  Butler, 


WHAT  IS    THE   BIBLE?  71 

who  wrote  a  book  that  has  since  been  famous, 
entitled  "  An  Analogy  of  Religion,  Natural  and 
Revealed,  to  the  Constitution  and  Course  of  Na- 
ture," gave  us  a  very  strong  demonstration  of  the 
danger  of  reasoning  in  this  way.  For  there  were 
those  in  his  day  who  were  contending  that  a  reve- 
lation from  God  must  be  universal,  —  that  it  could 
not  be  given  to  one  tribe  or  nation,  but  must  be 
bestowed  upon  all  men  alike  ;  also  that  there  could 
be  in  such  a  revelation  nothing  obscure  or  diffi- 
cult of  interpretation  ;  that  it  must  be  plain  to  the 
apprehension  of  all  men.  And  if  you  will  stop  to 
think  about  it  you  will  at  once  see  that  you  have 
precisely  as  much  right  to  make  these  affirmations 
beforehand,  as  you  have  to  say  beforehand  that 
the  Bible  as  God's  book  must  be  infallible.  It 
would  appear  to  be  reasonable  to  say  that  if  God 
is  the  universal  Father,  He  must  give  to  all  his 
children  the  same  gifts  of  light  and  knowledge  ; 
and  that  if  He  sends  them  a  message  it  will  be  a 
message  which  they  can  interpret  without  any  un- 
certainty as  to  its  meaning.  And  yet  we  know 
that  the  Bible  —  our  Bible  —  was  not  given  to  all 
the  tribes  of  earth,  but  only  to  one  obscure  people ; 
and  that  it  is  not  so  clear  in  its  meaning  but  that 
men  find  much  difficulty  in  understanding  it.  But, 
as  Bishop  Butler  goes  on  to  show,  we  find  exactly 
the  same  state  of  things  existing  in  Nature  and 
in  Providence.  We  could  just  as  well  have  argued 
beforehand  that  the  universal  Father  would  give 
all  his  children  equal  portions  of  natural  light  and 


72    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

knowledge  ;  and  that  the  Book  of  Nature  would 
be  writ  so  plain  that  the  unlearned  could  under- 
stand it  at  a  glance.  Nature  is  from  God  ;  might 
we  not  say  that  it  must  therefore  be  perfect  in  all 
its  parts,  and  holy  in  all  its  works  ?  This  argu- 
ment is,  of  course,  addressed  to  devout  men  who 
believe  that  God  is  the  author  of  nature.  And  I 
ask  them  whether  the  assumption  that  the  Bible 
must  be  infallible  because  God  is  omniscient  is  not 
precisely  equivalent  to  the  assumption  that  nature 
must  be  flawless  and  sinless  because  God  is  all 
powerful  and  all  benevolent  ?  The  truth  is  that 
the  methods  which  the  divine  wisdom  has  adopted 
for  the  education  of  the  world  are  not  always  such 
as  we  should  have  looked  for.  His  ways  are  not 
our  ways.  And  instead  of  determining  beforehand 
that  the  Bible,  because  it  is  God's  book,  must  be 
so  and  so,  and  then  warping  the  words  of  the 
Bible  to  fit  our  preconceived  theories,  it  is  better 
for  us  to  go  directly  to  the  Bible  itself  and  find 
out  what  it  is.  If  we  discover  in  its  pages  errors 
and  contradictions,  that  fact  need  no  more  convince 
us  that  it  has  not  come  from  Him  than  the  discov- 
ery of  cruelty  and  misery  in  nature  convinces  us 
that  it  has  not  come  from  Him. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Bible  is  not  only  God's 
book,  it  is  also  man's  book.  A  human  element  is 
mingled  with  the  divine  on  every  one  of  its  pages. 
We  have  the  treasure,  as  Paul  says,  in  earthen 
vessels.  The  truth  of  God  must  be  expressed  in 
the  words  of  men.  So  far  as  it  is  conveyed  in 


WHAT  IS   THE   BIBLE?  73 

human  language,  it  must  be  poured  into  the  moulds 
which  men  have  fashioned  for  it.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  these  moulds  will  often  be  found  inade- 
quate to  contain  the  full  divine  idea.  Any  one  can 
see  that  this  must  be  so.  The  idea  that  the  mind 
of  God  can  be  infallibly  expressed  in  the  words  of 
men  is  on  the  face  of  it  preposterous.  There  must 
be  more  or  less  of  imperfection  and  incompleteness 
in  such  a  revelation.  It  may  be  sufficient  to  show 
us,  in  a  general  way,  the  great  truths  that  it  is 
needful  for  us  to  know,  but  it  cannot  be  literally 
or  verbally  infallible. 

I  will  not  stop  long  to  point  out  the  errors  of  the 
Bible.  Let  it  be  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Bible  is 
not  scientifically  infallible.  "  Thus,  for  example," 
says  Professor  Kirkpatrick,  "  the  narrative  of  crea- 
tion in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  while  it  pre- 
sents a  most  remarkable  counterpart  to  the  discov- 
eries of  science,  cannot  be  said  to  tally  precisely 
with  the  records  written  on  the  rocks,  so  far  at  any 
rate  as  they  have  been  read  at  present."  More 
than  this  can  be  said  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion. Not  only  does  this  record  fail  to  tally  pre- 
cisely with  our  scientific  knowledge,  but  several 
features  of  the  narrative  distinctly  disagree  with 
what  we  know  of  the  origin  of  things.  This  on 
the  one  side.  But  on  the  other  side  it  is  true  that 
these  first  chapters  of  Genesis  give  us  the  founda- 
tions of  all  our  scientific  knowledge  ;  they  teach  us 
that  the  universe  is  one  ;  they  bring  before  us  "  one 
God,  one  law,  one  element ;  "  they  reveal  to  us  the 


74    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

supremacy  of  the  Creator  over  the  creation  ;  they 
help  us  to  see  that  creation  is  progressive  ;  they 
show  us  man  as  the  crown  of  the  creation,  —  the 
whole  finding  its  completion  in  Him  ;  they  give  us 
the  grand  optimistic  conception  which  is  the  motive 
power  of  modern  progress,  that  all  things  are  work- 
ing together  for  good  ;  that  there  is  — 

"  One  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 

How  much  science  is  indebted,  how  much  progress 
is  indebted,  to  the  presence  in  this  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  of  these  great  constructive  ideas,  we  shall 
probably  never  know,  until  we  have  the  long  leisure 
of  eternity  in  which  to  study  the  philosophy  of 
history.  In  the  midst  of  certain  misconceptions 
respecting  geological  and  astronomical  laws,  these 
great  spiritual  and  ethical  facts  stand  out  clear  as 
the  sunlight.  I  believe  that  this  truth  is  God- 
given  ;  that  the  reason  why  the  men  who  wrote 
these  words  were  so  sublimely  right  in  their  treat- 
ment of  these  very  highest  themes  was  that  God 
had  come  into  their  lives. 

The  Bible  is  not  historically  infallible.  On  the 
whole  the  history  is  veracious.  The  recent  discov- 
eries of  old  inscriptions  in  the  ruins  of  Nineveh 
and  Babylon  have  wonderfully  confirmed  a  great 
many  of  the  historical  statements  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  they  have  also  contradicted  a  few  of 
them  and  proved  them  to  be  inaccurate.  What  is 
much  more  conclusive,  there  are  quite  a  number 
of  instances  in  which  the  Bible  contradicts  itself, 


WHAT  IS   THE   BIBLE?  75 

statements  in  one  book  conflicting  with  statements 
in  another  book,  and  utterly  refusing,  after  all  the 
twisting  and  quibbling  of  the  commentators,  to  be 
reconciled.  There  is  no  honest  way  of  dealing 
with  a  good  many  of  these  discrepant  statements 
but  to  admit  that  one  or  the  other  must  be  wrong. 

There  are  also  errors  not  a  few  which  have  crept 
into  the  text  through  the  carelessness  of  copyists. 
Some  pairs  of  Hebrew  letters  closely  resemble  each 
other;  the  scribe  who  mistook  one  for  the  other 
might  change  a  word  radically,  and  give  to  the 
sentence  an  entirely  different  turn.  There  are 
scores  of  such  errors  as  these. 

And  there  are  other  imperfections  even  more 
serious.  As  the  divine  thought  must  find  expres- 
sion in  human  words,  so  the  divine  goodness  must 
find  expression  in  human  lives.  The  lives  of  men 
at  best  but  imperfectly  reflect  the  divine  goodness. 
The  moral  natures  of  men  are  often  so  undevel- 
oped that  you  cannot  make  them  comprehend  the 
righteousness  and  love  of  God.  And  therefore  the 
revelation  given  by  God  to  half  savage  men  must 
needs  be  morally  imperfect.  They  are  given  as 
much  as  they  can  receive,  and  as  their  natures  are 
gradually  purified  and  enlarged  they  are  given 
more.  Thus  the  revelation  must  needs  be  morally 
progressive ;  its  early  stages  must  contain  com- 
mands or  permissions  that  express  a  partial  moral- 
ity ;  men  will  be  directed  to  do  some  things  that 
their  children's  children,  in  later  generations,  would 
be  forbidden  to  do.  Jesus  tells  us  that  some  of 


76    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

the  commandments  and  laws  of  the  early  Hebrews 
were  given  to  them  because  of  the  hardness  of 
their  hearts ;  he  himself  quotes  some  of  these  old 
laws  —  prefaced,  in  the  Old  Testament  scriptures, 
by  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  " —  and  distinctly  sets 
them  aside  as  no  longer  binding.  Now  we  must 
never  forget  that  if  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  at  all 
it  is  a  progressive  revelation  ;  and  that  the  teaching 
which  was  adequate  for  the  earlier  stages  is  alto- 
gether inadequate  to  the  moral  needs  of  the  present 
day. 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  evidences  that  the  trea- 
sure of  divine  revelation  is  conveyed  to  us  in  an 
earthen  vessel ;  that  the  word  of  God  is  mediated 
through  the  minds  and  the  lips  of  imperfect  men. 
That  Moses  and  Samuel  and  David  and  Jeremiah 
and  James  and  John  and  Paul  are  imperfect  men 
we  know  very  well ;  they  do  not  hide  from  us  their 
imperfections ;  their  misconceptions,  their  faults  of 
character,  are  distinctly  revealed  to  us ;  yet  they 
were  men  of  God,  messengers  of  God,  every  one 
of  them  ;  and  they  have  something  to  say  to  us  to 
which  we  ought  to  give  diligent  heed.  We  have 
not  the  slightest  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
words  which  they  wrote  were  any  more  infallible 
than  their  characters  or  their  actions ;  but  as  there 
is  not  one  of  them  to  whom,  if  he  were  alive  to-day, 
we  would  not  confidently  go  for  counsel  respecting 
the  good  life,  so  there  is  not  one  of  them  whose 
written  words  are  not  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness. 


WHAT  IS  THE   BIBLE?  77 

But  I  can  imagine  that  some  one  may  be  saying, 
"  If  all  this  is  true,  then  the  Bible  is  no  more  than 
any  other  book."  No  ;  that  does  not  follow.  Be- 
tween the  two  statements,  "  literally  and  verbally 
infallible  "  and  "  no  more  than  any  other  book," 
there  is  a  long  distance,  and  one  can  be  far  from 
the  first  without  being  anywhere  near  the  second. 
It  is  the  defect  of  a  certain  variety  of  untrained 
intellect,  that  it  can  think  of  only  two  statements 
which  can  be  made  about  any  question,  the  one  of 
which  shall  be  the  exact  antithesis  of  the  other. 
Persons  of  this  order  of  mind  always  instantly 
assume  that  if  you  are  not  a  prohibitionist  you 
must  be  a  rumseller  or  in  the  secret  pay  of  the 
rumsellers  ;  that  if  you  do  not  believe  in  the  West- 
minster Confession  you  must  be  a  blatant  infidel ; 
or  that  if  you  are  not  willing  to  engage  in  the  per- 
secution of  Roman  Catholics  you  are  undoubtedly 
a  Jesuit  yourself.  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  this 
kind  of  logic  abroad  in  the  world ;  it  is  the  logic 
of  a  childish  intellect ;  I  trust  that  most  of  those 
who  are  reading  •  this  are  too  well  educated  to  be 
influenced  by  it.  One  may  refuse  to  accept  the 
traditional  view  of  the  Bible  and  still  be  very  far 
from  saying  that  it  is  no  more  to  him  than  any 
other  book. 

Other  books  there  are,  the  Bibles  of  other  races, 
of  which  I  could  never  speak  but  with  the  utmost 
respect.  That  God  has  revealed  some  portion  of 
his  truth  to  great  teachers  of  other  religions  I  do 
profoundly  believe.  "  I  cannot  bring  myself," 


78    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

says  a  distinguished  Protestant  theologian  of  Eng- 
land,—  "I  cannot  bring  myself,  and  there  is  no- 
thing in  the  history  of  Christianity  to  compel  me 
to  bring  myself,  to  divide  religions  absolutely 
into  true  and  false.  From  the  first  days  of  Chris- 
tian teaching  down  to  our  own,  there  has  not  been 
wanting  a  succession  of  men  who  have  seen  and 
rejoiced  in  the  elements  of  good  in  creeds  which 
we  have  not  subscribed.  Take  a  phenomenon  like 
the  Oracle  at  Delphi ;  take  that  most  touching 
account  which  Plato  gives  of  the  §a.ip.6viov  of  Soc- 
rates ;  take  the  teaching  of  Gautama  (Buddha)  ; 
analyze  the  character  of  Mahomet ;  shall  we  say 
that  there  is  no  spark  of  heaven  in  all  these  ?  As- 
suredly there  are  sparks  from  heaven  ;  assuredly 
there  are  seeds  of  the  divine  word  (cnripp.a.Ta  TOV 
Aoyos)  ;  assuredly  there  were,  as  Justin  Martyr 
recognized,  '  Christians  before  Christ ; '  assuredly 
even  now  there  are  '  heathen  who  are  not  hea- 
then,'—  '  not  my  people '  who  shall  be  called  '"my 
people,'  and  '  not  beloved '  who  shall  be  called 
'  beloved.'  "  I  do  not  mean  to  forget  these,  nor 
to  fail  to  thank  God  devoutly  for  all  of  his  truth 
that  He  has  made  known  to  them.  Nor  do  I  hesi- 
tate to  recognize  the  quality  of  inspiration  in  many 
great  and  good  books  of  the  present  day.  And 
yet  to  me  the  Bible  is  not  like  any  other  book  ;  it 
stands  in  a  class  by  itself,  apart  from  and  above 
all  other  books,  worthy  of  a  reverence  and  a  love 
which  I  can  give  to  no  other  book.  There  are 
more  reasons  than  one  why  this  is  so ;  let  me  name 
one  or  two. 


WHAT   IS   THE   BIBLE?  79 

When  I  travel  backward  over  the  course  of 
modern  history,  and  trace  to  their  source  those 
ideas  and  those  influences  of  our  modern  civiliza- 
tion which  are  most  beautiful,  most  powerful,  most 
benign,  I  find  them  leading  me  back  to  a  great 
Character,  a  unique  Personality,  who  was  living  in 
Palestine  about  nineteen  hundred  years  ago.  Phi- 
losophize as  I  will,  make  due  account  as  I  must  of 
all  the  physical  and  the  political  forces  that  have 
been  in  motion  through  this  period,  it  still  remains 
true  that  the  ideas  and  the  sentiments  and  the 
influences  which  emanated  directly  from  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  have  had  more  to  do  with  all  that  is  best 
in  modern  history  than  all  other  forces  put  to- 
gether. Do  not  take  my  word  for  this.  Some  of 
you  know  what  Mr.  Benjamin  Kidd  says  about  it, 
but  I  will  not  quote  him.  Let  me  call  instead,  as 
my  witness,  Mr.  Bernard  Bosanquet  of  Oxford,  one 
of  the  keenest-witted  men  now  living,  and  a  man 
who  is  connected  with  the  religious  radicals  of 
England.  The  address  from  which  I  shall  quote 
was  delivered  before  one  of  the  Ethical  Societies 
of  London,  a  society  which  rejects  the  name  of 
Christian  :  — 

"  It  is  true  and  cannot  but  be  true,  because  the 
religion  is  the  man,  that  Christianity  was  fitted  to 
become  and  has  become  the  definite  and  specific 
expression  of  the  character  of  those  races  which 
down  to  the  present  day  have  been  the  history- 
making  races  of  the  world. 

"  The  spirit  of  Christendom  then  —  parodied  by 


80    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

its  doctrines,  but  always  animating  its  life  —  and 
the  modern  spirit  are  on  the  whole  convertible 
terms;  and  when  we  speak  of  culture,  humanity, 
civilization,  as  indicating  moral  aims  and  duties, 
we  use  these  terms  in  the  sense  practically  defined 
for  us  by  the  mind  of  Christendom.  .  .  .  The  spirit 
of  Christendom  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  motor  force 
of  human  progress,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  fun- 
damental impulse  of  the  new  departure  at  the  time 
of  the  Christian  era."  * 

The  spirit  of  Christendom  is,  assuredly,  the 
spirit  of  Christ.  All  that  is  most  distinctive  and 
most  beneficent  and  most  glorious  in  the  life  of  the 
world  to-day  is  vitally  related  to  him. 

Now  here  is  a  book  that  tells  me  all  that  I  know 
about  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  about  his  life,  his 
teachings,  his  death  ;  a  book  which  shows  me  the 
streams  of  regenerating  influence  beginning  to  flow 
out,  through  the  lives  that  he  vitalized,  from  the 
little  land  of  Palestine  to  the  other  nations ;  which 
reveals  to  me  his  star  of  empire  taking  its  way 
westward,  over  the  glad  mountain  tops  of  Syria 
and  Asia  Minor,  through  the  classic  lands  of 
Greece,  to  the  seven  hills  of  the  Eternal  City,  —  a 
path  of  light  that  widens  and  glows  through  the 
centuries,  and  that  shall  shine  more  and  more,  till 
the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  his  glory.  And  when 
I  take  up  that  Book  which  contains  the  record  of 
this  Life  and  study  it  carefully,  I  find  that  through 
all  the  earlier  history  which  it  records,  through  all 
1  The  Civilization  of  Christendom,  pp.  71-73. 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE?  81 

the  crude  and  semi-savage  periods  of  patriarchs 
and  judges  and  the  turbulent  times  of  kings  and 
prophets,  there  run  converging  lines  of  prophecy 
and  promise  which  culminate  in  him.  Certain  it 
is  that  this  Jesus  is,  more  than  any  other,  the  cen- 
tral figure,  the  central  force,  of  modern  history. 
And  here  is  the  Book  which  tells  me  what  I  know 
about  him.  Is  there  any  other  book  which  has, 
which  can  have,  for  me  a  value  to  be  compared 
with  that  which  I  must  set  upon  this  Book?  It 
seems  to  me  that  no  man  can  claim  to  be  fairly 
intelligent  who  does  not  diligently  study  this 
Book  and  find  out  for  himself  what  the  ideas  and 
the  influences  are  which  are  regenerating  the 
world. 

But  this  Book  has  another  and  a  deeper  interest 
for  me  than  that  which  is  merely  historical  or  sci- 
entific. It  shows  me  the  forces  that  are  regenerat- 
ing the  world,  but  it  tells  me  also  some  things  that 
I  greatly  need  to  know  about  myself.  The  spirit 
that  speaks  through  it  bears  witness  to  my  spirit 
that  I  have  many  needs  which  things  seen  and  tem- 
poral do  not  supply. 

I  need  forgiveness.  I  have  been  disloyal  to  the 
impulses  which  summon  me  to  seek  the  highest 
good,  and  I  know  that  behind  those  impulses  is 
Some  One,  to  whom  in  spirit  I  am  kindred,  who 
has  a  right  to  command  me.  That  sense  of  un- 
worthiness  is  not  easily  placated ;  how  can  I  find 
peace  ? 

I  need  strength.     The  infirm  will,  the  wavering 


82    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

mind,  are  my  constant  bane  and  torment ;  how  can 
I  find  power  ? 

I  need  wisdom.  The  way  of  life  is  dim  and 
devious ;  the  questions  that  I  must  solve  are  per- 
plexing :  how  shall  I  find  the  light  ? 

I  need  hope  and  courage.  Often  I  am  sore 
bestead ;  the  foes  are  many ;  the  helpers  few  and 
cowardly ;  my  heart  sinks  within  me ;  who  will  lift 
up  my  head  ? 

I  need  comfort.  Dark  days  come  ;  great  griefs 
lay  their  heavy  hands  upon  me ;  voices  that  my 
heart  stood  still  to  hear  are  silent  forever  ;  I  stand 
in  the  gathering  mist  alone  and  dumb  ;  who  will 
help  me  bear  my  burden  ?  I  need  the  assurance 
of  life  eternal.  In  my  path,  also,  waits  the  Shadow 
feared  of  men.  Not  many  days  hence  I  shall  meet 
him  and  I  shall  not  say  him  nay.  The  realities  of 
the  life  beyond  —  who  can  tell  me  about  them  ? 

These  are,  surely,  the  deepest  needs  of  my  life. 
Who  can  supply  them  ?  Where  can  I  find  the  an- 
swer to  all  these  questions  ?  I  believe  that  I  find 
them  answered  in  this  Book  more  fully,  more  per- 
fectly, more  convincingly,  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
world.  I  believe  that  He  in  whom  the  promise 
and  the  prophecy  of  this  Book  culminate,  and  who 
is  called,  and  rightly  called,  the  Prince  of  Life 
and  the  Light  of  the  World,  has  a  clear  and  satisfy- 
ing answer  to  give  to  all  these  questions.  And  if 
you  and  I  go  to  the  Book  with  these  questions  up- 
permost in  our  thought,  not  to  cavil,  nor  to  criti- 
cise, but  wishing  for  peace  and  power  and  wisdom 


WHAT  IS   THE   BIBLE?  83 

and  courage  and  comfort  and  promise  of  the  life  to 
come,  with  open  mind  receiving  the  influences  it  is 
fitted  to  impart,  —  we  shall  find,  what  countless 
millions  have  found,  that  it  is  able  to  make  us  wise 
unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus. 


IS   THERE   A   PERSONAL   DEVIL  ? 

THE  question  of  this  chapter  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  answered  by  any  old  Hebrew,  of  the 
days  before  the  exile,  by  an  emphatic  negative. 
He  knew  of  no  such  personality.  Neither  Abra- 
ham, nor  Moses,  nor  Samuel,  nor  David,  nor 
Isaiah,  nor  Jeremiah,  nor  any  of  the  earlier  pro- 
phets had  ever  heard  of  such  a  potentate.  We 
infer  that  he  was  unknown  to  all  these  worthies 
because  none  of  them  mentions  him.  Devil  with 
the  definite  article,  as  signifying  the  Prince  of 
Darkness,  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament. 
"  Devils,"  in  the  plural,  is  found  four  times  in  the 
old  version  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures.  In  two  of 
these  cases  it  is  a  palpable  and  ridiculous  mistrans- 
lation ;  the  new  version  properly  renders  the 
Hebrew  word  "  he-goats."  The  reference  is  to  the 
unlawful  worship  of  that  animal.  In  the  other 
two  cases  the  new  version  substitutes  "  demons," 
so  that  we  may  say  that  the  word  devil  is  not  found 
in  the  new  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Satan,  however,  is  mentioned  in  four  places.  In 
one  of  them,  the  one  hundred  and  ninth  Psalm,  the 
new  version  substitutes  "  adversary."  It  is  one  of 


IS  THERE   A  PERSONAL   DEVIL?  85 

those  imprecatory  psalms,  in  which  the  writer  is 
wishing  all  sorts  of  harm  to  his  enemy ;  and  he 
hopes  that  he  may  be  brought  to  a  speedy  trial 
with  a  wicked  judge  over  him,  and  an  adversary 
or  accuser  at  his  right  hand.  The  Hebrew  word 
Satan  means  adversary ;  and  of  course  the  psalm- 
ist's reference  here  is  to  some  accusing  man  and 
not  to  any  evil  spirit. 

In  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  First  Chronicles 
we  are  told  that  Satan  provoked  David  to  number 
Israel.  In  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel  we  have  a 
much  earlier  account  of  the  same  transaction,  in 
which  it  is  said  that  the  Lord  himself,  being  angry 
with  Israel,  instigated  David  to  do  this  thing. 
The  Book  of  the  prophet  Zechariah  mentions  Satan 
as  an  enemy  or  accuser  of  the  good  priest  Joshua, 
and  in  the  Book  of  Job  he  is  also  introduced  as  the 
accuser  of  the  chief  personage  of  that  drama. 

Respecting  the  Chronicles  and  the  Book  of  Zech- 
ariah, we  know  that  they  were  written  after  the 
exile ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  Job  belongs 
to  the  same  period.  If  we  were  sure  of  this,  we 
should  have  a  very  clear  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  belief  in  Satan  so  far  as  the  Hebrews  are  con- 
cerned. The  fact  being  that  no  reference  to  such 
an  evil  potentate  is  found  in  any  of  the  writings 
preceding  the  exile,  and  that  the  people  among 
whom  they  were  sojourning  during  the  exile  pos- 
sessed a  very  highly  developed  religious  faith,  in 
which  the  existence  of  an  evil  deity  was  a  cardinal 
doctrine,  it  seems  clear  that  the  Hebrews  borrowed 


86    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

from  the  Persians  their  belief  in  such  a  personage. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  some  elements  of  a 
dark  superstition  did  find  entrance  to  their  minds 
in  the  early  days  ;  and  that  those  two  references  to 
demons,  to  which  I  have  alluded,  indicate  their 
fear  of  some  mysterious  powers,  inhabiting  waste 
places,  and  threatening  their  peace.  The  mono- 
theism of  the  old  Hebrews  was,  however,  of  so  posi- 
tive a  character,  that  no  room  was  found  in  their 
minds  for  any  rival  deity,  bad  or  good.  The  Satan 
of  the  Book  of  Job,  whatever  date  we  may  give 
the  book,  is  not  the  prince  of  a  hostile  dominion ; 
he  is  one  of  the  sons  of  God ;  apparently  he  is  a 
sort  of  prosecuting  attorney  whose  business  it  is  to 
find  out  evil  deeds  and  report  them.  Naturally  he 
takes  a  pessimistic  view  of  human  character,  but 
the  view  appears  to  be  purely  professional.  The 
evil  which  he  inflicts  on  Job  is  permitted  by  Jeho- 
vah, as  a  test  of  Job's  integrity.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  character  of  Satan  as  it  appears  in  this  book 
to  suggest  the  gigantic  and  malignant  personality 
of  the  later  theology. 

The  Serpent  which  tempted  Eve  has  been  popu- 
larly identified  with  Satan  or  the  devil,  but  there 
is  not  one  word  in  the  narrative  which  suggests 
any  such  thing.  He  is  simply  called  a  serpent ;  he 
is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
the  most  cunning  of  them  all.  The  only  scriptural 
warrant  for  the  belief  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was 
the  devil,  in  the  form  of  a  serpent,  is  found  in  two 
places  in  the  Apocalypse,  when  "  that  old  Serpent, 


IS  THERE   A   PERSONAL   DEVIL?  87 

the  devil  and  Satan  "  is  mentioned.  No  reference 
is  made  to  Eve  or  her  temptation  ;  it  is  only  by  a 
doubtful  inference  that  the  Serpent  of  Eden  can 
be  identified  with  the  one  mentioned  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse. And  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  writer 
of  the  narrative  in  Genesis  did  not  intend  to  de- 
scribe, under  the  designation  of  the  Serpent,  any 
such  personage  as  the  later  theology  has  created 
and  named  Apollyon  or  Beelzebub.  That  person- 
age, I  say,  was  not  known  nor  imagined  by  any  of 
the  Hebrew  prophets,  kings,  or  lawgivers,  before 
the  Babylonian  exile.  But  when  the  people  came 
back  from  that  exile  they  brought  with  them  the 
germs  of  a  demonology  which  mightily  affected 
their  after  belief.  Here  we  see  some  traces  of 
that  dbarglaube  whose  invasion  Matthew  Arnold 
traces  in  the  religion  of  Israel. 

The  Dualism  of  the  Persians  and  the  Medians 
which  the  Jews  thus  borrowed  would  well  repay  a 
careful  study  ;  I  have  time  only  to  allude  to  it. 
Rawlinson  tells  us  that  the  original  Zoroastrianism, 
like  the  original  form  of  the  Jews'  religion,  was 
not  dualistic.  The  Persians  first  believed  in  "  a 
single  great  Intelligence,  Ahuro-Mazdao,  the  high- 
est object  of  adoration,  the  true  Creator,  preserver, 
and  governor  of  the  universe.  This  is  its  great 
glory.  It  sets  before  the  soul  a  single  Being  as  the 
source  of  all  good  and  the  proper  object  of  the 
highest  worship."  J  But  the  Persians  began  to  try 
to  account  for  the  evils  in  the  world ;  they  let  their 

1  Five  Great  Monarchies,  iii.  96. 


88    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

imagination  work  upon  this  problem.  "  They  see," 
says  Rawlinson,  "  everywhere  a  struggle  between 
right  and  wrong,  truth  and  falsehood,  purity  and 
impurity ;  apparently  they  are  blind  to  the  evi- 
dence of  harmony  and  agreement  in  the  universe, 
discerning  nothing  anywhere  but  strife,  conflict, 
antagonism.  Nor  is  this  all.  They  go  a  step  fur- 
ther, and  personify  the  two  parties  to  the  struggle. 
One  is  a  '  white  '  or  holy  '  spirit,'  and  the  other  a 
dark  spirit  (angro-mainyus).  But  this  personi- 
fication is  merely  poetical  or  metaphorical.  The 
'  white  spirit  'is  not  Ahura-Mazda,  and  the  '  dark 
spirit '  is  not  a  hostile  intelligence.  Both  resolve 
themselves  on  examination  into  mere  figures  of 
speech,  phantoms  of  poetic  imagery,  abstract  no- 
tions, clothed  by  language  with  an  apparent,  not 
a  real  personality. 

"  It  was  natural  that,  as  time  went  on,  Dualism 
should  develop  itself  out  of  the  primitive  Zoro- 
astrianism.  Language  exercises  a  tyranny  over 
thought,  and  abstractions  in  the  ancient  world  were 
ever  becoming  persons.  The  Iranian  mind,  more- 
over, had  been  struck,  when  it  first  turned  to  con- 
template the  world,  with  a  certain  antagonism; 
and,  having  once  entered  the  track,  it  would  be 
compelled  to  go  on,  and  seek  to  discover  the  origin 
of  the  antagonism,  the  cause  or  causes  to  which  it 
was  to  be  ascribed.  Evil  seemed  most  easily  ac- 
counted for  by  the  supposition  of  an  evil  Person  ; 
and  the  continuance  of  an  equal  struggle,  without 
advantage  to  either  side,  which  was  what  the  Ira- 


IS  THERE   A   PERSONAL   DEVIL?  89 

nians  thought  they  beheld  in  the  world  that  lay 
around  them,  appeared  to  them  to  imply  the  equal- 
ity of  that  evil  Person  with  the  Being  whom  they 
rightly  regarded  as  the  author  of  all  good.  Thus 
Dualism  had  its  birth.  The  Iranians  came  to  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  two  coeternal  and  coequal 
persons,  between  whom  there  had  been  from  all 
eternity  a  perpetual  and  never-ceasing  conflict,  and 
between  whom  the  same  conflict  would  continue  to 
rage  through  all  coming  time."  1 

It  was  thus  that  the  belief  in  Angro-Mainyus, 
or  Ahriman,  —  the  black  spirit,  —  was  developed 
among  this  ancient  people.  And  the  Persian  the- 
ology thenceforward  set  these  two  potentates  of  good 
and  evil  over  against  each  other  in  an  eternal  con- 
flict. "  Whatever  good  work  Ahura-Mazda  in  his 
benevolence  creates,  Angro-Mainyus  steps  forward 
to  mar  and  blast  it.  If  Ahura-Mazda  forms  a  '  de- 
licious spot '  in  a  world  previously  desert  and  un- 
inhabitable, to  become  the  first  home  of  his  favor- 
ites, Angro-Mainyus  ruins  it  by  sending  into  it  a 
poisonous  serpent,  and  at  the  same  time  rendering 
the  climate  one  of  the  bitterest  severity.  If  Ahura- 
Mazda  provides,  instead  of  this  blasted  region, '  the 
second  best  of  regions  and  countries,'  Angro- 
Mainyus  sends  there  the  curse  of  murrain,  fatal  to 
all  cattle.  In  every  land  which  Ahura-Mazda  cre- 
ates for  his  worshipers,  Angro-Mainyus  immedi- 
ately assigns  some  plague  or  other.  War,  ravages, 
sickness,  fever,  poverty,  hail,  earthquakes,  buzzing 
1  Five  Great  Monarchies,  iii.  105,  106. 


90     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

insects,  poisonous  plants,  unbelief,  witchcraft,  and 
other  inexpiable  sins  are  introduced  by  him  into 
the  various  happy  regions  created  without  any  such 
drawbacks  by  the  good  spirit ;  and  a  world  which 
should  have  been  '  very  good '  is  by  these  means 
converted  into  a  scene  of  trial  and  suffering."  l 

It  is  evident,  now,  I  think,  whence  came  the  mighty 
Prince  and  Potentate  of  Evil  who  has  had  so  large 
a  part  to  play  in  later  Jewish  and  Christian  theo- 
logy. We  have  tracked  him  to  his  lair.  The  rela- 
tion between  these  Persians  and  the  Israelites,  while 
the  latter  dwelt  among  them,  was  very  close  and 
sympathetic ;  the  Israelites  absorbed  from  them 
the  idea  of  a  Kingdom  of  Evil  arrayed  against  the 
Kingdom  of  Jehovah,  and  it  became  a  part  of  their 
system  of  belief.  They  modified  it,  however,  very 
materially.  Their  Satan  never  became  so  power- 
ful a  personage  as  the  Persian  Angro-Mainyus.  His 
dominion  was  always  inferior  and  his  power  greatly 
limited.  Yet  he  was  able  to  do  a  great  deal  of  mis- 
chief in  the  world :  and  they  conceived  of  him  as 
the  sovereign  of  a  bad  realm,  whose  messengers 
and  emissaries  were  always  at  work  tormenting  hu- 
man beings  and  exercising  their  diabolical  power 
in  many  injurious  ways.  Such  was  the  common 
belief  of  the  Jews  when  our  Lord  was  on  the  earth. 
His  relation  to  this  belief  we  will  consider  a  little 
later ;  we  are  only  trying  now  to  trace  its  historical 
development  among  the  Jews.  Having  adopted 
this  new  Potentate  into  their  pantheon,  the  Jewish 

1  Five  Great  Monarchies,  iii.  107,  108. 


IS  THERE  A   PERSONAL   DEVIL?  91 

theologians  had  to  account  for  him.  Who  was  he, 
and  how  came  he  into  this  state  of  hostility  to  the 
good  God  ?  They  finally  made  out  that  he  was  a 
fallen  angel.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  old  Tes- 
tament or  in  the  Gospels  or  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
or  the  Epistles  about  this  :  the  first  hint  of  it,  and  it 
is  very  slight,  is  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Re- 
velation, where  we  read  of  a  war  in  heaven  between 
Michael  and  his  angels,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
dragon,  otherwise  the  old  serpent,  sometimes  called 
the  Devil  and  Satan,  and  his  angels  on  the  other ; 
the  result  of  which  was  the  defeat  of  the  dragon 
and  his  followers,  who  were  cast  out  of  heaven,  and 
fell  to  the  earth.  This  apocalyptical  writing,  whose 
language  is  confessedly  highly  symbolical,  fur- 
nishes all  the  biography  of  the  Devil  that  the  Bible 
contains.  The  biblical  materials  for  a  history  of 
the  Devil  are,  it  must  be  owned,  extremely  meagre. 
But  there  were  a  number  of  apocryphal  writings, 
appearing  about  this  time,  in  which  the  informa- 
tion is  more  specific.  And  whatever  may  have 
been  believed  by  the  apostles  concerning  this  Prince 
of  Darkness,  the  early  church  soon  began  to  de- 
velop the  doctrine  of  the  Devil,  and  it  was  not 
many  centuries  before  an  elaborate  system  of  belief 
concerning  him  had  been  evolved  from  the  imagi- 
nations of  Christian  teachers.  "  Holding  firmly," 
says  one  authority,  "  to  the  belief  of  a  Satanic 
Kingdom  of  darkness  opposed  to  Christ's  Kingdom 
of  light,  the  majority  of  the  early  Christians  as- 
cribed all  evil,  physical  as  well  as  moral,  to  the 


92    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

Devil  and  his  demons,  —  failures  of  the  crop,  steril- 
ity, pestilence,  murrain  among  cattle,  mental  mala- 
dies, persecutions  of  the  Christians,  individual  vices, 
heresies,  astrology,  philosophy,  and  finally  the  whole 
body  of  heathenism,  with  its  mythology  and  reli- 
gious worship.  The  heathen  gods  were  believed  to 
be  conquered  by  the  work  of  Christ,  but  not  to  be 
wholly  powerless  ;  they  sank  down  into  demons, 
and  so  a  part  of  their  mythology  passed  into  the 
doctrine  of  the  Devil." 

Thus  the  Satanic  cult,  if  we  may  so  describe  it, 
was  thoroughly  planted  in  Christian  theology. 
Strong  tendencies  appeared,  like  those  of  the  Gnos- 
tics and  the  Manichseans,  to  a  dualism  as  unqual- 
ified as  that  of  the  Parsees,  in  which  the  Kingdom 
of  Evil  was  made  coeternal  with  the  Kingdom  of 
Good  ;  but  these  tendencies  were  resisted ;  Satan 
was  not  admitted  to  be  equal  in  power  with  the 
Lord  God ;  his  kingdom  was  not  from  everlasting 
to  everlasting  ;  defeat  and  final  overthrow  were  in 
store  for  him ;  but  for  the  present  he  was  a  tremen- 
dous fact,  and  a  large  part  of  the  time  and  thought 
of  the  church  was  expended  in  tracing  and  sub- 
verting diabolic  agencies.  "  The  whole  world," 
says  Mr.  Lecky,  "  was  divided  between  the  King- 
dom of  God  and  the  Kingdom  of  Satan.  The 
persecuted  church  represented  the  first,  the  perse- 
cuting world  the  second.  In  every  scoff  that  was 
directed  against  their  creed,  in  every  edict  that 
menaced  their  persons,  in  every  interest  that  opposed 
their  progress,  they  perceived  the  direct  and  imme- 


IS  THERE  A  PERSONAL   DEVIL?  93 

diate  action  of  the  Devil.  Tl  ey  found  a  great  and 
ancient  religion  subsisting  around  them.  Its  gor- 
geous rites,  its  traditions,  its  priests,  and  its  mira- 
cles had  preoccupied  the  public  inind,  and  pre- 
sented what  seemed  at  first  an  insuperable  barrier 
to  their  mission.  In  this  religion  they  saw  the 
especial  workmanship  of  the  Devil,  and  their 
strong  predisposition  to  interpret  every  event  by  a 
miraculous  standard  persuaded  them  that  all  its 
boasted  prodigies  were  real.  Nor  did  they  find  any 
difficulty  in  explaining  them.  The  world  they 
believed  to  be  full  of  malignant  demons  who  had 
in  all  ages  persecuted  and  deluded  mankind."  1 

It  is  terrible  to  read  of  the  extent  to  which,  for 
many  centuries,  the  thought  of  the  church  was  per- 
vaded by  these  conceptions  of  diabolic  agency.  A 
large  share  of  natural  phenomena  was  attributed  to 
the  Devil :  he  was  supposed  to  assume  the  forms 
of  all  kinds  of  animals ;  the  pig  grunting  at  you 
by  the  roadside,  the  toad  hopping  across  your  path, 
the  blackbird  chattering  at  you  from  the  thicket, 
the  beetle  booming  into  your  room  after  the  lamp 
was^lighted,  were  very  probably  shapes  of  the  Devil. 
All  human  forms,  from  the  priest  in  his  cassock  to 
the  gallant  with  his  sword,  from  the  wizened 
granddame  to  the  blooming  maiden,  he  could  eas- 
ily assume ;  any  traveling  companion  who  joined 
you  in  a  solitary  walk  was  very  likely  the  Devil ; 
all  lonely  places  were  haunted  by  him ;  even  in  the 
crowded  streets  he  moved  undetected,  and  in  the 
1  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  chap.  i. 


94    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

homes  of  men  he  tooi  up  his  abode.  During-  sev- 
eral of  the  middle  centuries,  from  the  fifth  to  the 
twelfth,  the  sense  of  his  presence  was  scarcely 
absent  from  the  minds  of  the  devout ;  but  in  that 
happy  time,  Mr.  Lecky  tells  us,  although  there 
had  never  been  a  day  "  in  which  the  sense  of  Sa- 
tanic power  was  more  profound  and  universal," 
the  counteracting  superstition,  connected  with  the 
efficacy  of  certain  magical  rites,  was  also  so  strong 
that  not  much  distress  was  felt  on  this  account. 
"  It  was  firmly  believed  that  the  arch-fiend  was 
forever  hovering  about  the  Christian,  but  it  was 
also  believed  that  the  sign  of  the  cross,  or  a  few 
drops  of  holy  water,  or  the  name  of  Mary,  could 
put  him  to  an  immediate  and  ignominious  flight."  1 
There  was,  however,  even  then,  a  dark  belief  that 
all  the  terrible  natural  phenomena  —  earthquakes, 
thunderstorms,  hailstorms,  pestilences,  famines  — 
were  produced  by  the  Devil ;  even  when  the  Pil- 
grim Fathers  settled  in  Plymouth,  they  attributed 
the  severe  thunderstorms,  to  which  they  were  un- 
accustomed, to  the  wrath  of  the  Devil  at  their  inva- 
sion of  his  territory.  The  Black  Death  which 
slew  so  many  victims  during  the  Middle  Ages  was 
universally  believed  to  be  a  diabolic  visitation. 

Then  it  came  to  be  believed  that  these  disasters 
were  often  due  to  the  intervention  of  men  who  had 
put  themselves  into  the  power  of  the  Devil,  and  so 
arose  the  horrible  belief  in  witchcraft  and  sorcery 
which  for  many  generations  came  near  to  being 
1  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  chap.  i. 


IS  THERE   A  PERSONAL   DEVIL?  95 

a  demoniac  possession  of  those  who  believed  it. 
Cruel  and  terrible  was  this  superstition ;  in  every 
community  were  those  who  were  said  to  have  sold 
themselves  to  the  Devil,  and  to  be  the  willing  in- 
struments of  his  malignity.  Thus  was  let  loose, 
all  round  the  world,  a  truly  hellish  suspicion ;  any 
slight  mental  or  nervous  peculiarity  exposed  its 
possessor  to  this  deadly  accusation ;  personal  jeal- 
ousies and  enmities  seized  upon  this  superstition 
for  a  weapon,  and  the  fiery  zeal  of  a  religionism 
that  had  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  reality  and  per- 
vasiveness of  the  Satanic  kingdom  found  vent  in 
a  reign  of  terror  that  lasted  for  centuries.  We 
often  hear  of  the  Salem  witchcraft  and  its  victims, 
and  I  dare  say  there  are  many  who  conceive  that 
our  New  England  ancestors  were  singular  in  their 
subjection  to  this  craze.  Doubtless  we  all  regret 
that  the  men  of  Massachusetts  Bay  were  not  supe- 
rior to  this  mania,  but  if  they  had  been,  they  would 
have  been  wholly  exceptional  in  their  generation. 
In  our  colonies  twenty-seven  persons  in  all  suffered 
death  as  witches  ;  in  Europe  they  were  put  to  death 
by  thousands.  "  The  zeal  of  the  ecclesiastics," 
says  Mr.  Lecky,  "  in  stimulating  the  persecution, 
was  unflagging.  It  was  displayed  alike  in  Ger- 
many, France,  Spain,  Italy,  Flanders,  Sweden, 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  An  old  writer 
who  cordially  approved  of  the  rigor  tells  us  that 
in  the  Province  of  Como  alone  eight  or  ten  inquisi- 
tors were  constantly  employed ;  and  he  adds  that 
in  one  year  the  number  of  persons  they  condemned 


96    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

amounted  to  a  thousand,  and  that  during  several 
of  the  succeeding  years  the  victims  seldom  fell 
below  one  hundred." 1  I  must  give  you  one  more 
sketch  from  the  pen  of  Professor  Burr  of  Cornell 
University:  "The  Reformation  for  a  little  while 
distracted  men's  minds,  but  with  its  first  lull,  at 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  persecu- 
tion burst  forth  with  redoubled  fury  in  all  Chris- 
tian lands,  Catholic  and  Protestant  alike,  to  rage 
for  more  than  a  century,  and  then  smoulder  to  our 
own  day.  The  figures  given  for  the  total  number 
of  its  victims  are  merest  guesswork,  and  those  for 
many  local  persecutions  are  scarcely  more  reliable  ; 
but  they  are  as  likely  to  be  below  as  above  the 
truth.  We  have  the  names  of  hundreds  who  per- 
ished in  single  jurisdictions  within  the  space  of  two 
or  three  years ;  and  the  records  thus  preserved  are 
but  chance  fragments.  A  single  Lorraine  judge 
boasted  of  having  sentenced  nine  hundred,  and  he 
was  still  in  the  midst  of  his  activity.  If  the  per- 
secution knew  fiercer  epidemics  in  Catholic  coun- 
tries it  was  more  chronic  in  Protestant.  Nor  was 
it  mainly  old  women  who  suffered.  Such  might  be 
accused  first,  but  the  witch  was  always  tortured 
into  naming  her  accomplices,  and  she  generally 
named  those  whom  she  hated  or  envied.  Riches, 
learning,  beauty,  goodness  were  often  so  many 
titles  to  death.  '  There  are  still,'  wrote  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Bishop  of  Wiirzburg  to  a  friend  in 
1629,  4  four  hundred  in  the  city,  high  and  low,  of 

1  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  chap.  i. 


IS  THERE  A  PERSONAL  DEVIL?  97 

every  rank  and  sex,  nay,  even  clerics,  so  strongly 
accused  that  they  may  be  arrested  at  any  hour. 
Some  out  of  all  offices  and  faculties  must  be  ex- 
ecuted; clerics,  electoral  counselors  and  electors, 
city  officials,  court  assessors,  several  of  whom  your 
Grace  knows.  There  are  law  students  to  be  ar- 
rested. The  Prince-Bishop  has  over  forty  students 
who  are  soon  to  be  pastors ;  among  them  thirteen 
or  fourteen  are  said  to  be  witches.  A  few  days 
ago  a  dean  was  arrested ;  two  others  who  were 
summoned  have  fled.  The  notary  of  our  church 
consistory,  a  very  learned  man,  was  yesterday  ar- 
rested and  put  to  the  torture.  In  a  word,  a  third 
part  of  the  city  is  surely  involved.  The  richest, 
most  attractive,  most  prominent  of  the  clergy  are 
already  executed.  A  week  ago  a  maiden  of  nine- 
teen was  put  to  death,  of  whom  it  is  everywhere 
said  that  she  was  the  fairest  in  the  whole  city,  and 
was  held  by  everybody  a  girl  of  singular  modesty 
and  purity.  She  will  be  followed  by  seven  or 
eight  others,  of  the  best  and  most  winsome.  There 
are  children  of  three  and  four  years,  to  the  num- 
ber of  three  hundred,  who  are  said  to  have  had 
intercourse  with  the  Devil.  I  have  seen  put  to 
death  children  of  seven,  promising  students  of  ten, 
twelve,  fourteen,  and  fifteen.  Of  the  nobler  —  but 
I  cannot  and  must  not  write  more  of  this  misery. 
There  are  persons  of  yet  higher  rank  whom  you 
know  and  would  marvel  to  hear  of.'  Such,  to 
quote  but  a  single  document,  was  the  scope  of  the 
witch  persecution."  1 

1  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia,  art.  "  Witchcraft." 


98    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

To  the  yoke  of  this  horrible  superstition  all  the 
greatest  and  best  of  mankind  bent  their  necks. 
Luther's  belief  in  the  Devil  and  in  witchcraft  was 
unhesitating.  As  for  the  witches,  he  had  no  mercy 
on  them.  "  Spare  none  of  them,"  he  cried ;  "  I 
would  burn  them  all."  The  question  respecting 
the  certainty  of  detecting  them  did  not  trouble  his 
mind ;  it  was  easy  enough,  of  course,  to  tell  who 
was  a  witch  and  who  was  not.  As  to  the  existence 
of  the  Devil,  Luther  was  just  as  certain  as  he  was 
of  his  own  existence.  He  had  met  him  more  than 
once,  and  had  had  lively  conversations  with  him. 
"Early  this  morning,"  he  writes  in  his  diary, 
"  when  I  awoke  the  fiend  came  and  began  disput- 
ing with  me.  '  Thou  art  a  great  sinner,'  said  he. 
I  replied,  '  Canst  thou  not  tell  me  something  new, 
Satan  ? '  "  It  is  evident  that  in  repartee  his  Satanic 
Majesty  was  no  match  for  Martin.  Even  when  it 
came  to  inkstands  his  answer  was  ready.  One 
day  as  he  was  going  to  begin  his  studies  he  heard 
a  noise  which  he  at  once  explained  as  proceeding 
from  the  adversary,  and  he  writes :  "  As  I  found 
he  was  about  to  begin  again  I  gathered  together 
my  books  and  got  into  bed.  Another  time  in  the 
night  I  heard  him  above  my  cell  walking  in  the 
cloister,  but  as  I  knew  it  was  the  Devil  I  paid  no 
attention  to  him  and  went  to  sleep." 

Do  not  imagine  that  it  was  the  church  and  the 
clergy  who  were  solely  responsible  for  this  super- 
stition ;  the  greatest  jurists,  publicists,  scholars, 
statesmen  all  passionately  defended  it.  "  Thomas 


IS   THERE  A  PERSONAL  DEVIL?  99 

Aquinas,"  says  Lecky,  "was  probably  the  ablest 
writer  of  the  oightoonth  century,  and  he  assures  us 
that  diseases  and  tempests  are  the  direct  acts  of  the 
Devil ;  that  the  Devil  can  transport  men  at  his 
pleasure  through  the  air,  and  that  he  can  transform 
them  into  any  shape.  Gerson,  the  Chancellor  of 
the  University  of  Paris  and,  as  many  think,  the 
author  of  'The  Imitation,'  is  justly  regarded  as 
one  of  the  master  intellects  of  his  age ;  and  he, 
too,  wrote  in  defense  of  the  belief.  Bodin  was 
unquestionably  the  most  original  political  philoso- 
pher who  had  arisen  since  Machiavelli,  and  he 
devoted  all  his  learning  and  acuteness  to  crushing 
the  rising  skepticism  on  the  subject  of  witches." 1 
The  most  cruel  law  for  the  punishment  of  witches 
passed  by  the  English  Parliament  was  enacted 
when  Coke  was  attorney  general  and  Bacon  was 
a  member  of  Parliament ;  the  Commission  which 
reported  it  included  twelve  Bishops.  Sir  Thomas 
Browne,  one  of  the  liberals  of  that  day,  and  one  of 
the  most  genial  and  cultivated  gentlemen  of  his- 
tory, wrote  in  the  "  Religio  Medici,"  "  I  have  ever 
believed  and  do  now  know  that  there  are  witches ; 
they  that  deny  them  .  .  .  are  a  sort,  not  of  in- 
fidels, but  of  atheists."  In  1664  two  women  were 
hung  in  Suffolk  under  a  sentence  of  Sir  Matthew 
Hale,  whose  charge  to  the  jury  declared  that  the 
reality  of  witchcraft  could  not  be  questioned ; 
"  for,  first,  the  Scriptures  had  affirmed  so  much ; 
and,  secondly,  the  wisdom  of  all  nations  had  pro- 

1  Hist.  Rationalism,  chap.  i. 


100    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

vided  laws  against  such  persons,  which  is  an  argu- 
ment of  their  confidence  of  such  a  crime." 

Such,  then,  is  a  most  meagre  sketch  of  the  pre- 
valence of  the  dark  belief  in  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 
The  earth  has  been  visited  by  few  scourges  more 
dire.  The  cruelty  and  perfidy,  the  malice  and 
suspicion  which  it  engendered,  the  destruction  and 
misery  which  it  caused,  are  almost  too  fearful  for 
credence.  If  we  know  beliefs,  as  we  know  men, 
by  their  fruits,  —  and  there  is  no  other  test,  —  this 
belief  in  a  Satanic  kingdom  must  be  adjudged  to 
be  most  evil  and  accursed. 

Can  we  say  that  it  has  disappeared  from  the 
Christian  church  ?  That  would  be  too  strong  a 
statement.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  place 
which  it  occupies  in  the  thoughts  of  Christians  is 
not  what  it  was  three  hundred  years  ago.  The  belief 
in  witchcraft  has  practically  vanished  from  civili- 
zation. The  last  witch  was  burned  in  Scotland  in 
1722  ;  and  although,  as  late  as  1773,  "  the  divines 
of  the  Associated  Presbytery  "  passed  a  resolution 
declaring  their  belief  in  witchcraft,  and  deploring 
the  popular  skepticism  concerning  it ;  and  although 
John  Wesley,  a  little  more  than  one  hundred  years 
ago,  said  that  those  who  doubted  witchcraft  were 
tainted  with  infidelity,  and  that  if  this  belief  was 
overthrown  Christianity  would  go  with  it,  it  seems 
to  be  true  that  witchcraft  is  dead,  and  that  Chris- 
tianity is  still  very  much  alive. 

Some  sort  of  belief  in  a  personal  Devil  is  still 
common,  I  suppose,  among  Orthodox  Christians. 


IS  THERE   A  PERSONAL   DEVIL?          101 

It  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  an  article  of  faith  :  this 
it  has  never  been.  None  of  the  three  great  creeds 
of  the  church  —  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene 
Creed,  or  the  Athanasian  Creed  —  makes  mention 
of  the  Devil ;  he  is  referred  to  incidentally,  in  some 
of  the  great  Protestant  confessions,  but  I  do  not 
remember  that  any  of  them  have  undertaken  to 
define  him,  or  to  formulate  any  belief  concerning 
him.  The  brief  survey  which  we  have  given  of 
the  part  that  the  belief  has  played  in  the  history 
of  the  church1  enables  us,  however,  to  state,  in  a 
general  way,  what  the  popular  conception  of  Satan 
has  been. 

The  Orthodox  belief  has  regarded  him  as  the 
sovereign  of  a  vast,  world-wide  dominion  of  evil 
spirits,  who  are  banded  together,  under  him,  to  do 
his  bad  behests.  These  spirits  and  their  great 
Prince  have  but  one  purpose,  to  hurt  and  harass 
and  ruin  men,  body  and  soul.  Their  home  is 
hell;  but  under  the  orders  of  their  great  Prince 
they  are  sent  forth  to  range  free  through  the  earth, 
tempting  human  beings  and  seeking  to  draw  them 
down  to  the  place  of  eternal  torment. 

All  these  evil  spirits  have  great  power  over  na- 
ture, —  power  to  work  miracles,  it  would  seem ;  to 
transport  themselves  instantaneously  from  place  to 
place,  and  to  assume  manifold  forms.  But  the 
prince  of  them  all,  the  personal  Devil,  of  the  popu- 
lar theology,  must  be  practically  omnipotent.  He 
produces  earthquakes,  plagues,  famines,  hurricanes, 
eclipses  ;  his  miraculous  control  of  natural  forces  is 


102    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

practically  unlimited.  And  he  must  also  be  omni- 
present. At  one  and  the  same  instant  he  is  tempt- 
ing men  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe  ;  his  diaboli- 
cal intelligence  is  in  immediate  contact  with  the 
minds  of  men  everywhere.  I  am  sure  that  this  is 
distinctly  implied  in  the  popular  belief  concerning 
him.  Unless  Satan  is  actually  omnipresent,  his 
influence  over  the  minds  of  human  beings  cannot 
,  be  what  it  is  popularly  supposed  to  be.  If  he  can 
only  be  in  one  place  at  a  time,  and  must  pass,  no 
matter  with  what  rapidity,  from  one  place  to  an- 
other in  pursuit  of  his  malignant  purposes,  it  is 
but  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  any  generation  that 
he  can  by  any  possibility  reach  in  the  course  of  its 
life.  That  would  not  at  all  answer  the  popular 
]  demand  upon  him  for  "  pernicious  activity."  No- 
thing less  than  omnipresence,  and  nothing  less  than 
omniscience,  could  possibly  equip  Satan  for  the 
kind  of  work  which  he  is  generally  believed  to  be 
doing. 

Do  we  believe  in  the  existence  of  such  a  king- 
dom of  evil,  with  such  a  potentate  as  this  at  the 
head  of  it  ? 

Most  of  us  will  say  at  once  that  the  belief  once 
entertained  in  the  power  of  the  Devil  over  the 
forces  of  nature  can  no  longer  be  justified  :  it  is 
not,  we  shall  all  admit,  credible  that  earthquakes 
and  eclipses  and  pestilences  are  caused  by  him. 
We  know  something  of  the  causes  of  these  phe- 
nomena. But  there  are  still  a  good  many  per- 
sons, I  suppose,  who  believe  him  to  possess  a  great 


IS   THERE   A   PERSONAL   DEVIL?          103 

deal  of  power,  and  to  be  performing  a  great  deal  of 
mischief  in  the  world  in  many  mysterious  ways. 

To  all  such,  let  me  suggest  that  these  concep- 
tions about  him  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  less  vague. 
If  there  is  such  a  Prince  of  Evil,  we  ought  to  know 
more  about  him  ;  we  ought  to  be  able  to  tell,  more 
definitely,  what  is  his  power  and  what  are  his  lim- 
itations. We  do  not  want  to  be  ascribing  to  him 
attributes  that  make  him  a  deity  scarcely  subordi- 
nate to  God  himself,  unless  they  really  belong  to 
him.  And  those  who  esteem  it  important  that 
belief  in  the  existence  of  this  Prince  of  Darkness 
should  be  maintained,  are  bound,  I  think,  to  tell 
us  very  definitely  just  how  much  we  are  to  believe 
about  him. 

For  my  own  part  I  am  quite  free  to  say  that  I 
do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  such  organ- 
ized kingdom  of  evil  spirits,  ruled  by  a  great  Prince 
or  Potentate,  and  set  in  deadly  array  against  the 
Kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ.  If  you 
mean  by  a  personal  Devil  a  gigantic  evil  intelli- 
gence whose  sole  purpose  in  the  universe  is  the 
destruction  of  men's  souls,  and  who  commands  vast 
armies  of  evil  spirits  in  an  age-long  warfare  upon 
human  virtue  and  human  happiness,  then  I  say  I 
do  not  believe  in  a  personal  Devil.  The  concep- 
tion of  such  a  personage,  so  far  as  this  age  is  con- 
cerned, is  largely  taken  from  Paradise  Lost.  I 
suppose  that  the  conceptions  of  Satan  which  pre- 
vail in  our  Protestant  churches  have  nearly  all  been 
drawn  from  this  source.  It  is  well  to  remember 


104    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

that  Paradise  Lost  is  a  great  work  of  the  imagina- 
tion. Milton's  picture  of  this  stupendous  Prince  of 
Darkness  is  not  a  good  foundation  of  theological 
belief. 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  such  a  king- 
dom, with  such  a  ruler,  because  it  is  morally  and 
psychologically  impossible  that  it  should  exist. 
Unrelieved  and  absolute  evil  cannot  organize  it- 
self into  a  kingdom.  Its  very  principle  is  division 
and  disintegration.  Its  essence  is  anarchy.  "  Sin 
is  lawlessness,"  says  the  apostle.  The  mightiest 
intellect  that  ever  existed  could  not  hold  together 
for  one  week  such  an  aggregation  of  absolute  self- 
ishness. Every  one  of  his  minions  would  be  per- 
petually conspiring  against  him,  and  against  all 
the  rest. 

What  is  more,  the  whole  effect  of  evil  upon  the 
intellect  is  benumbing,  deadening.  Selfishness 
weakens  a  man's  mental  grasp  and  narrows  his 
range  of  vision.  A  politician  who  is  nothing  but 
a  selfish  schemer  always  becomes  less  astute  as  he 
grows  older.  He  is  morally  sure,  before  he  dies, 
to  make  some  stupendous  blunder  which  even  a 
tyro  would  have  avoided.  The  history  of  our  poli- 
tics furnishes  many  instances  of  such  intellectual 
failure  on  the  part  of  men  who  were  known  to  be 
utterly  selfish,  but  supposed  to  be  preternaturally 
shrewd.  If,  then,  Satan  had  been  for  so  many  cen- 
turies devoted  to  such  pursuits  as  are  ascribed  to 
him,  he  would,  unless  God  had  set  aside  in  his 
behalf  the  natural  working  of  his  own  laws,  have 


IS  THERE   A   PERSONAL  DEVIL?          105 

been  an  absolute  idiot  long  before  this,  and  so 
would  all  his  angels.  If  the  Devil  is  one  of  God's 
creatures,  the  law  under  which  he  was  created 
must  be  the  law  of  love.  That  is  the  law  of  his 
being,  the  organic  law  of  his  spirit.  His  sin  is 
only  disobedience  to  that  law.  Disobedience  to 
that  law,  in  any  part  of  this  universe,  brings  after 
it,  as  the  natural  effect,  intellectual  as  well  as 
moral  deterioration,  weakness,  —  the  diminution  of 
being.  The  operation  of  that  law  absolutely  forbids 
and  makes  absurd  the  existence  of  any  such  gigan- 
tic Prince  of  Darkness  as  Milton  has  painted. 
The  Bible  rightly  calls  the  sinner  the  fool ;  and 
the  longer  he  sins  the  greater  fool  he  is.  If 
there  is  a  Devil,  one  who  has  sinned  longer  and 
more  persistently  than  any  other  of  God's  crea- 
tures, he  must  be  the  greatest  fool  in  the  universe, 
and  we  need  not  be  at  all  afraid  of  him. 

In  the  second  place  I  do  not  believe  in  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  gigantic  world  dominion  of  evil 
spirits  with  such  a  ruler,  because  I  believe  all  that 
Jesus  Christ  has  taught  us  to  believe  concerning  the 
Heavenly  Father.  That  the  Infinite  Power  behind 
all  law  is  infinite  compassion  and  infinite  helpful- 
ness is  the  first  article  in  my  creed,  and  with  this 
everything  else  must  agree.  If  there  is  a  good 
God,  he  has  not  let  loose  in  the  world  such  a 
mighty  host  of  malignant  spirits,  with  such  a  gi- 
gantic malefactor  at  the  head  of  them,  to  prey 
upon  the  souls  of  his  children. 

In  the  third  place  I  do  not  accept  this  theory, 


106    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

because  history  shows  us  what  horrible  effects  it 
produces  in  human  society  where  it  is  generally 
and  firmly  believed.  Restore  the  belief  in  Satan 
to  the  rank  and  importance  that  it  held  in  the 
minds  of  men  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  you 
will  have  all  the  atrocities  of  that  dark  day  re- 
peated. A  belief  cannot  be  true  which  works  such 
devastation  in  the  moral  lives  of  men. 

Is  there,  then,  no  sense  in  which  we  may  use  this 
word,  so  long  upon  trembling  human  lips?  Is 
there  no  true  conception  to  which  we  may  properly 
or  usefully  apply  this  name  ?  There  is,  I  an- 
swer, if  orily  we  do  it  intelligently.  The  word  is 
one  that  I  often  use,  and  I  think  I  know  what  I 
mean  by  it.  It  is  simply  the  aggregate  spiritual 
wickedness  of  the  world,  personified.  "  Satan,  or 
the  devil,  taken  in  the  singular,"  says  Dr.  Bushnell, 
"  is  not  the  name  of  any  particular  person,  neither 
is  it  a  personation  of  temptation  or  impersonal 
evil,  as  many  think  ;  for  there  is  really  no  such 
thing  as  impersonal  evil  in  the  sense  of  moral  evil ; 
but  the  name  is  a  name  that  generalizes  bad  per- 
sons or  spirits,  with  their  bad  thoughts  and  char- 
acters, many  in  one.  That  there  is  any  single  one 
of  them  who,  by  distinction  or  preeminence,  is 
called  Satan  or  devil  is  wholly  improbable.  The 
name  is  one  taken  up  by  the  imagination  to  desig- 
nate or  embody,  in  a  conception  the  mind  can  most 
easily  wield,  the  all  or  total  of  bad  minds  and 
powers." 1  The  demon  in  the  New  Testament  story 

1  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  p.  135. 


IS   THERE   A   PERSONAL   DEVIL?          107 

told  the  truth  when  he  said,  "  My  name  is  Legion, 
for  we  are  many."  Just  so  "  Mammon  "  is  per- 
sonified in  the  Scriptures  as  a  ruler  of  this  world. 
He  is  materialism  hypostatized.  Just  so  "  The 
Man  of  Sin  "  and  "  Antichrist  "  are  personified 
in  the  New  Testament  and  the  personal  pronouns 
are  applied  to  them.  Doubtless  the  terms  describe 
no  historical  individual,  but  groups  or  assemblages 
of  hostile  minds  and  influences.  Just  so  in  the 
Book  of  Proverbs  "  Wisdom  "  is  personified,  and 
represented  as  a  beautiful  matron  who  seeks  by  her 
motherly  influence  to  lead  the  children  of  men  into 
the  paths  of  life.  Such  personifications,  by  which 
abstract  truths  are  put  into'  concrete  form  and  vast 
spiritual  tendencies  are  grouped  by  the  imagination 
under  one  symbolic  term,  are  very  useful  in  our 
common  speech.  To  speak  of  the  sum  of  moral 
evil  in  the  universe  as  the  Devil  is  a  convenient  and 
intelligible  locution.  In  this  sense  it  is  the  Devil 
that  tempts  us,  that  ensnares  us,  that  poisons  our 
thoughts,  that  lies  in  wait  for  our  souls.  And  it 
is  well  for  us  to  gather  up  the  evil  of  the  world  into 
one  conception,  and  set  ourselves  sternly  against 
the  whole  of  it.  Familiar  and  colloquial  though 
our  use  of  the  term  may  be,  symbolical  though  we 
know  it  is,  it  is  very  significant.  Thomas  Carlyle 
was  entertaining  no  superstitious  ideas  about  a  per- 
sonal Devil,  but  he  had  a  most  clear  and  wholesome 
idea  in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  to  his  brother 
John  :  "  One  has  to  learn  the  hard  lesson  of  mar- 
tyrdom, and  that  he  has  arrived  in  the  earth  not 


108    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

to  receive,  but  to  give.  Let  him,  then,  be  ready 
to  spend  and  be  spent  for  God's  cause ;  let  him,  as 
he  needs  must,  set  his  face  like  a  flint  against  all 
dishonesty  and  indolence  and  puffery  and  quackery 
and  malice  and  delusion  whereof  earth  is  full ;  and 
once  for  all  flatly  refuse  to  do  the  devil's  work  in 
this  which  is  God's  earth,  let  the  issue  be  simply 
what  it  may.  '  I  must  live,  sir,'  say  many  ;  to 
which  I  answer,  '  No,  sir,  you  need  not  live ;  if 
your  body  cannot  be  kept  together  without  selling 
your  soul,  then  let  the  body  fall  asunder  and  the 
soul  be  unsold.'  In  brief,  Jack,  defy  the  devil  in 
all  his  figures,  and  spit  upon  him  ;  he  cannot  hurt 
you."1 

j  Doubtless  the  Devil,  used  in  this  sense,  will  have 
different  meanings  for  different  men ;  but  to  every 
man  it  means  all  the  evil  that  assails  him ;  all  the 
influences  that  tend  to  undermine  his  integrity,  to 
lower  his  moral  standards,  to  poison  his  thoughts, 
to  make  him  swerve  from  the  path  of  manliness 
and  purity. 

Is  it  in  this  sense,  you  want  to  know,  that  the  word 
devil  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  ?  Sometimes 
it  is,  no  doubt.  For  the  Oriental  mind  personifies 
much  more  than  does  the  Western  mind.  Never- 
theless I  do  not  question,  as  I  have  already  said, 
that  the  people  of  Judea  in  the  New  Testament 
times  —  the  majority  of  them  —  did  believe  in  a 
great  kingdom  of  evil  spirits,  with  Beelzebub,  the 
Prince  of  the  Devils,  as  its  ruler.  Jesus  found  this 

1  Froude's  Carlyle,  ii.  197. 


IS   THERE  A  PERSONAL  DEVIL?          109 

conception  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  he  did 
not  antagonize  it,  but  accommodated  his  teachings 
to  it.  At  least  this  is  the  impression  given  by  the 
gospel  narratives.  Assuming  that  he  is  correctly 
reported,  I  find  it  difficult  to  explain  all  his  rela- 
tion to  this  question.  The  story  of  the  temptation 
does  not  trouble  me,  for  this  is  clearly  an  allegory. 
It  is  not  likely  that  Jesus  was  literally  carried 
through  the  air  by  the  devil  from  the  wilderness  to 
Jerusalem  and  set  upon  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple  ; 
and  it  is  not  possible  that  he  should  have  been 
taken  to  any  literal  mountain  from  the  top  of 
which  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  can  be  literally 
seen ;  for  no  such  mountain  exists,  or  could  exist 
upon  the  earth.  The  transaction  must  have  been 
purely  spiritual ;  it  is  a  dramatic  description  of  a 
conflict  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  as  the  corporate  self- 
ishness of  the  world  presents  itself  to  him  in  the 
three  most  universal  and  powerful  forms  of  appe- 
tite, vanity,  and  ambition.  There  is  no  difficulty 
in  understanding  this  narrative.  But  some  of  the 
reported  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  in  connection 
with  this  subject  I  do  not  wholly  understand. 
What  he  tells  us,  however,  about  the  Father  and 
his  kingdom  of  righteousness  and  peace  I  do  under- 
stand, and  I  build  my  faith  on  that.  I  know  that 
this  was  the  main  thing  that  Jesus  came  to  teach  ; 
I  know  that  he  came  to  show  us  the  Father ;  I 
know  that  the  God  whom  he  reveals  to  us  is  the 
Good  Shepherd,  who  follows  the  estray  into  the 
wilderness  to  bring  him  back,  rejoicing  more  over 


the  sheep  that  was  lost  and  found  again  than  over 
the  ninety  and  nine  that  went  not  astray  ;  the 
prodigal's  father,  who  meets  the  returning  wan- 
derer a  long  way  off ;  the  gracious  Benefactor,  who 
maketh  his  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and  the  good 
and  sendeth  his  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust. 
Whatever  conflicts  with  this  conception  of  the  hea- 
venly Father  and  his  kingdom  on  the  earth,  I  can 
find  no  room  for  in  my  theology.  If  there  seems 
to  be  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  himself  an  element 
which  I  cannot  reconcile  with  this,  I  think  that  I 
honor  him  by  passing  it  by,  and  waiting  for  the 
time  to  come  when  I  may  understand  him  better. 
It  is  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  as  I  do  firmly  believe,  — 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  abiding  in  the  world,  and  grad- 
ually taking  possession  of  the  thoughts  of  men, 
that  is  banishing  this  dreadful  dogma  from  the 
earth.  Many  things  against  which  he  lifted  up 
no  word  of  protest,  which  he  silently  assumed, 
have  been  banished  from  among  men  by  the  power 
of  his  spirit.  Slavery  was  here,  in  its  worst  form, 
before  his  very  face ;  he  never  condemned  it,  but 
he  created  a  moral  atmosphere  in  which  it  could 
not  live.  Polygamy  he  never  forbade,  but  he  made 
it  impossible.  And  though  the  demonology  of  his 
time  was  assumed  by  him,  as  was  slavery  and  po- 
lygamy, he  has  brought  into  the  world  a  conception 
of  God  and  of  his  kingdom  which,  when  once  the 
world  is  able  to  receive  it,  will  make  an  end  of  all 
this  dismal  doctrine.  Perhaps  it  was  a  glimpse  of 
this  triumph  over  the  Kingdom  of  Night  that  he 


IS  THERE   A  PERSONAL   DEVIL?          Ill 

saw  when  he  exclaimed  :  "  I  beheld  Satan  as  light- 
ning fall  from  heaven."  May  God  speed  the  day 
when  all  these  spectral  kingdoms  of  superstition 
and  darkness  shall  disappear  in  the  brightness  of 
the  glory  of  Him  who  comes  to  lead  the  world 
into  the  knowledge  of  God ! 


VI 

WHAT   DO   WE   INHERIT? 

"  WHAT  mean  ye,"  is  the  protest  of  Jehovah  by 
the  mouth  of  the  old  prophet,  "  that  ye  use  this 
proverb  in  the  land  of  Israel,  saying,  The  fathers 
have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth 
are  set  on  edge  ?  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God, 
ye  shall  not  have  occasion  to  use  this  proverb  any 
more  in  Israel."  It  would  have  been  well  for  the 
interests  of  a  sound  theology  if  no  occasion  had 
been  found  to  use  the  proverb  outside  of  Israel. 
For,  in  truth,  the  very  substance  of  this  proverb, 
which  the  prophet  denounces  as  heathenish,  has 
been  wrought  into  theology  in  Hippo  and  in  Hei- 
delberg, in  Geneva  and  in  Dordrecht,  in  London 
and  in  Boston,  and  has  mightily  influenced  the 
creeds  and  the  prayers  of  many  centuries.  That 
the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge  because  the 
fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes  is  a  proverbial  ex- 
pression of  the  doctrine  that  sin  is  hereditary ;  that 
the  guilt  of  ancestors  is  bequeathed  to  their  de- 
scendants ;  that  one  generation  may  be  justly  pun- 
ished for  the  misdeeds  of  former  generations.  This 
has  been,  since  the  days  of  Augustine,  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine,  accepted  by  the  great  body  of  reli- 


WHAT  DO  WE  INHERIT?  113 

gious  teachers,  Protestant  and  Catholic.  It  has 
been  stated  variously  ;  the  manner  in  which  this 
guilt  is  transmitted  from  generation  to  generation 
has  been  a  subject  of  much  controversy ;  but  the 
great  majority  of  Christian  teachers  have  main- 
tained that  in  some  way  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is 
transmitted  to  his  descendants ;  that  they  are  justly 
punishable  for  what  he  did.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  clearly  teaches  that  we  are  punished  for 
Adam's  sin,  but  the  punishment  consists  in  the  loss 
of  original  holiness,  rather  than  in  the  infliction  of 
suffering.  However,  the  case  stands  so  that  every 
infant  comes  into  the  world  under  the  curse  pro- 
nounced on  Adam,  and  liable  at  its  first  breath  to 
be  consigned  to  everlasting  separation  from  God. 
Baptism  implants  in  the  soul  of  this  child  the  germ 
of  grace,  so  that  if  it  dies  after  baptism  it  is  saved. 
If,  however,  an  infant  dies  before  baptism,  the 
Catholic  theology  gives  us  no  reason  to  hope  for  its 
future  blessedness.  It  will  not,  indeed,  suffer  the 
torments  of  hell ;  it  is  consigned  to  that  limbus 
infantum,  of  which  Dante  tells  us  in  the  fourth 
canto  of  the  Inferno.  This  is  the  abode  of  those 
of  whom  Virgil  says  :  — 

"  That  they  sinned  not ;  and  if  they  merit  had, 
'T  is  not  enough,  because  they  had  not  baptism, 
Which  is  the  portal  of  the  Faith  thou  boldest : 
And  if  they  were  before  Christianity, 
In  the  right  manner  they  adored  not  God  j 
And  among  such  as  these  am  I  myself. 
For  such  defects  and  not  for  other  guilt, 
Lost  are  we,  and  are  only  so  far  punished 
That  without  hope,  we  live  on  in  desire." 


114    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

Punishment  enough,  one  would  say,  —  through  all 
eternity  to  cherish  hopeless  desires.  This  is  the 
fate  to  which  the  orthodox  Catholic  theology  still 
consigns  unbaptized  children.  Much  the  same  is 
true  of  High  Anglicanism.  So  much  emphasis  is 
placed  by  that  school  upon  the  efficacy  of  sacra- 
ments, that  the  reception  of  baptism  by  the  infant 
appears  to  be  a  clear  condition  of  salvation. 
When  the  due  performance  of  that  rite  has  been 
omitted,  the  curse  of  the  law  appears  to  rest  upon 
the  little  children. 

With  all  the  churches  of  the  Puritans,  Congre- 
gationalists,  and  Presbyterians,  there  was  no  ques- 
tion about  the  inheritance  of  the  curse  pronounced 
on  Adam.  That  was  the  foundation  of  orthodoxy. 
Our  first  parents  "  being  the  root  of  all  mankind," 
says  the  Westminster  Confession,  "  the  guilt  of 
their  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin 
and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  poster- 
ity, descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation. 
.  .  .  Every  sin  both  original  and  actual,  being 
a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and 
contrary  thereunto,  doth,  in  its  own  nature,  bring 
guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over 
to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so 
made  subject  to  death  with  all  miseries,  spiritual, 
temporal,  and  eternal." l 

No  statement  can  be  clearer  than  this,  that  every 
infant  comes  into  the  world  under  the  curse  of 
Adam's  sin.  Nor  is  there,  by  this  creed,  any  such 

1   Westminster  Confession,  chap.  vi. 


WHAT  DO  WE  INHERIT?  115 

provision  for  canceling  this  curse  by  baptism,  as 
the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  affords.  The  doc- 
trine of  election  comes  in  here  to  assure  us  that 
elect  infants  will  be  saved,  even  if  they  are  not 
baptized ;  and  that  non-elect  infants  will  be  damned, 
no  matter  how  promptly  we  may  baptize  them. 

This  brief  recital  will  indicate  the  extent  to  which 
this  doctrine  of  the  inheritance  of  sin  has  shaped 
theology.  There  have  been,  indeed,  in  all  the  ages 
those  who  protested  against  it ;  since  the  sixteenth 
century  the  Arminians,  among  whom  Wesleyans 
and  Methodists  of  all  names  are  to  be  reckoned, 
have  stoutly  denied  it ;  but  it  still  remains  true 
that  up  to  this  day  the  great  majority  of  Chris-  « 
tians,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  retain  in  their 
creeds  the  idea  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is 
bequeathed  to  his  descendants. 

That  a  great  many  of  those  who  assent  to  these 
creeds  have  ceased  to  believe  them,  I  have  no 
doubt,  but  they  still  remain  as  the  doctrinal  sym- 
bols of  the  bodies  holding  them. 

That  such  a  belief  could  have  intrenched  itself  in 
our  theology  and  held  sway  over  the  minds  of  men 
for  so  many  centuries  is  evidence  of  the  rudi- 
mentary and  unclear  ethical  conceptions  prevailing 
in  men's  minds.  The  moral  sense  must  be  imper- 
fectly developed  which  cannot  see,  on  the  least 
reflection,  that  guilt  cannot  be  inherited.  That  I 
can  be  held  responsible  for  the  sins  of  my  ances- 
tors, and  be  deserving  of  punishment  for  what  they 
have  done,  is  a  proposition  that  conflicts  with  the 


116    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

foundations  of  morality.  Guilt  is  absolutely  per- 
sonal ;  the  word  connotes  moral  responsibility  for 
unlawful  conduct ;  and  moral  responsibility  belongs 
to  individuals,  and  can  no  more  be  transferred 
from  one  to  another  than  the  act  of  breathing  can 
be  performed  by  one  person  for  another,  or  the 
sensation  of  cold  be  experienced  by  one  person 
for  another.  My  child  can  no  more  be  guilty  or 
deserving  of  punishment  for  my  sin  than  he  can 
see  with  my  eyes  or  feel  with  my  nerves. 

It  is  a  little  strange  that  the  indignant  protest 
of  this  old  prophet  was  not  oftener  heard  in  the 
days  when  this  doctrine  of  imputation  and  in- 
herited sin  was  taught  and  defended:  "Yet  say 
ye,  Why  ?  doth  not  the  son  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
father  ?  When  the  son  hath  done  that  which  is 
lawftd  and  right,  and  hath  kept  all  my  statutes  and 
hath  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live.  The  soul 
that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son ;  the  righteousness  of 
the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him." 

This  is  the  everlasting  truth ;  and  any  theologi- 
cal dogma  which  conflicts  with  it  is  false  and  mis- 
chievous. The  doctrines  that  held  us  responsible 
for  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  deserving  of  punishment 
because  of  his  offense,  do  not  any  longer  command 
the  credence  of  thoughtful  men.  If  anybody  pro- 
fesses to  believe  in  inherited  guilt,  he  at  once 
makes  it  evident  that  he  uses  the  word  in  a  Pick- 


WHAT  DO   WE   INHERIT?  117 

wickian  sense  ;  he  explains  it  all  away  so  that  it 
means  something  very  different  from  what  the  term 
ordinarily  conveys.  Of  the  old  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  as  taught  and  believed  by  our  grandfathers, 
very  little,  thank  God,  is  left.  It  was  just  what 
Ezekiel  calls  it,  —  a  heathenish  doctrine ;  it  imputed 
to  God  the  most  monstrous  injustice  ;  to  many  in- 
genuous minds  it  was  a  grave  impediment  to  faith. 

But  how  about  heredity,  you  are  asking?  Is 
there  no  truth  in  heredity  ?  There  is,  I  answer,  a 
tremendous  truth  ;  and  it  is  this  with  which  the 
theologians  have  been  fumbling.  They  saw  the 
facts  of  heredity ;  they  took  the  popular  and  poetic 
statements  of  the-  Scriptures  concerning  them,  as 
scientific  formula,  and  out  of  these  made  up  their 
dogmas.  But  they  read  neither  the  facts  nor  the 
Scriptures  correctly,  and  therefore  their  dogma 
became  a  horrible  accusation  against  the  divine 
justice. 

What  is  heredity  ?  "  It  is  that  biological  law," 
answers  Bibot,  "  by  which  all  beings  endowed  with 
life  tend  to  repeat  themselves  in  their  descendants ; 
it  is  for  the  species  what  personal  identity  is  for 
the  individual.  By  it  a  groundwork  remains  un- 
changed amid  incessant  variation  ;  by  it  Nature 
ever  copies  and  imitates  herself."  1  "  It  is  that  pro- 
perty of  an  organism,"  says  Weissman,  "  by  which 
its  peculiar  nature  is  transmitted  to  its  descend- 
ants." 2  "  Each  child,"  says  Dr.  Bradford,  "  not 
only  is  related  to  the  whole  race  as  a  species,  but 

1  Heredity,  p.  1.  2  Essays  on  Heredity,  p.  71. 


is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  offspring  of 'individuals, 
bearing  within  him  signs  of  his  parentage,  not  only 
in  his  bodily  organism,  but  also,  with  equal  clear- 
ness, in  his  mental  and  spiritual  constitution."  l 

The  first  great  outstanding  fact  of  heredity  is 
the  fact  of  species.  We  will  not  dispute  about  the 
definition  of  species ;  we  all  know  that  in  all  the 
world  of  living  things  "  like  produces  like."  Oaks 
grow  from  acorns  and  not  from  chestnuts  ;  lions 
are  the  offspring  of  lions,  eagles  of  eagles,  fish  of 
fish,  insects  of  insects,  human  beings  of  human  be- 
ings. Even  race  peculiarities  are  inherited ;  the 
child  of  pure  Aryan  parents  never  has  the  phy- 
sical or  mental  peculiarities  of  the  African  or  the 
Mongolian  ;  the  greyhound  does  not  give  birth  to 
the  mastiff,  nor  the  short  horn  to  the  Jersey,  nor 
the  Percheron  to  the  Hambletonian. 

More  significant  still  is  the  transmission  of  per- 
sonal and  family  traits.  The  physical  resemblance 
of  children  to  their  parents  is  the  common  fact; 
often  this  resemblance  is  obvious  to  all  observers ; 
sometimes  it  is  extremely  subtle,  consisting  less  of 
featurely  similitude  than  of  evanescent  shades  of 
expression.  In  this  case  it  is,  however,  mainly  a 
matter  of  character.  Family  resemblances  of  this 
sort  are  often  far  more  quickly  observed  by  strangers 
than  by  kinsmen.  Oftentimes  a  physical  trait  will  be 
handed  down  for  generations,  like  the  aquiline  nose 
of  the  Bourbons,  or  the  "  Batcheler  eye  "  which. 
Mr.  Whittier  inherited. 

1  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  p.  3. 


WHAT   DO   WE  INHERIT?  119 

Special  mental  traits  and  aptitudes  are  also  fre- 
quently transmitted.  Galton's  investigations  im- 
pressively show  us  this  fact.  ^Eschylus  had  eight 
kinsmen  who  were  poets.  Coleridge  was  the  first 
of  a  literary  line.  Thomas  Arnold  of  Rugby  was 
the  father  of  Matthew  Arnold  and  the  grandfather 
of  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward.  In  music  the  illustra- 
tions are  many.  Says  Dr.  Bradford  :  — 

"  Andrea  Amati  was  only  the  most  illustrious 
member  of  a  family  of  violinists  at  Cremona ; 
Mozart's  father  was  a  violinist ;  Beethoven  was  the 
son  of  a  tenor  singer  ;  and  Mendelssohn  was  of 
a  musical  family.  The  Bachs  supply  perhaps  the 
most  distinguished  instance  of  mental  heredity  on 
record.  The  family  began  in  1550,  and  lasted 
through  eight  generations  to  the  year  1800.  Dur- 
ing a  period  of  nearly  two  hundred  years  it  pro- 
duced a  number  of  artists  of  the  first  rank.  Its 
head  was  Weit  Bach,  a  baker  of  Presburg,  who 
used  to  seek  relaxation  from  labor  in  music  and 
song.  He  had  two  sons  who  commenced  the  un- 
broken line  of  musicians  of  the  same  name  that, 
for  nearly  two  centuries,  may  be  said  to  have  over- 
run Thuringia,  Saxony,  and  Franconia.  They 
were  all  organists  or  church  singers.  When  they 
had  become  too  numerous  to  live  near  each  other, 
and  the  members  of  the  family  were  scattered 
abroad,  they  resolved  to  meet  once  a  year,  on  a 
stated  day,  with  a  view  to  keeping  up  a  sort  of 
patriarchal  bond  of  union.  This  custom  was  con- 
tinued until  nearly  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 


120    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

century,  and  very  often  there  gathered  together 
more  than  one  hundred  persons  bearing  the  name 
of  Bach,  men,  women,  and  children.  In  this  family 
are  mentioned  twenty-nine  eminent  musicians."  l 

Doubtless  in  some  of  these  cases  the  influence  of 
environment  as  well  as  of  heredity  must  be  con- 
sidered ;  a  child  who  inherited  no  exceptional  mu- 
sical talent,  but  who  was  born  into  such  a  musical 
atmosphere  and  surrounded  with  such  associations 
as  those  of  the  Bach  family,  would  be  likely  to  be- 
come a  good  musician.  Nevertheless  the  fact  of 
inheritance,  in  all  these  cases,  is  established  beyond 
cavil.  Intellectual  tendencies  and  aptitudes  are 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation. 

There  is  a  great  dispute,  just  now,  among  the 
evolutionists,  as  to  how  much  is  transmitted.  The 
new  school  of  Darwinians,  under  the  lead  of  Pro- 
fessor Weissmann,  maintain  that  acquired  charac- 
teristics are  not  ti'ansmitted ;  that  the  parents  may 
hand  down  to  their  children  peculiarities  which 
were  theirs  at  birth,  but  do  not  bequeath  any  habits 
which  they  may  have  formed  or  any  special  quali- 
ties which  they  may  have  acquired.  I  cannot  go 
into  that  discussion  here;  the  principal  facts  of 
heredity  with  which  I  have  to  deal  are  admitted  by 
both  parties. 

Are  moral  traits  and  qualities  transmitted  ?  Do 
our  children  inherit  our  virtues  and  our  vices? 
This  is  the  question  which  most  deeply  concerns  us 
now. 

1  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  p.  39. 


WHAT   DO   WE  INHERIT?  121 

There  seems  to  be  plenty  of  evidence  that  tenden- 
cies to  physical  disease  are  transmitted.  A  child 
of  consumptive  parents  is  predisposed  to  consump- 
tion. Nervous  disorders  are  still  more  likely  to  be 
inherited.  One  authority  says  that  half  the  cases  of 
insanity  in  France  amongst  the  higher  classes,  and 
one  third  of  those  amongst  the  lower  classes,  have 
been  inherited  from  parents  or  ancestors.  The 
close  connection  between  physical  and  moral  disor- 
ders might  indicate  that  if  the  former  are  inherited 
the  latter  also  must  be.  But  it  is  just  here  that  we 
need  to  be  very  careful  about  our  facts  and  our  phi- 
losophy. Disease,  disorder,  infirmity,  both  of  body 
and  of  mind,  may  be  transmitted  to  offspring,  and 
thus  tho  children  may  be  born  with  predispositions 
to  vice  and  wrong-doing ;  but  this  involves  no  guilt 
nor  demerit ;  the  inheritors  are  in  no  wise  respon- 
sible for  what  they  have  inherited  ;  neither  good 
men  nor  a  just  God  can  blame  them  for  their  mis- 
fortune ;  the  vices  of  their  parents  or  ancestors  do 
not  become  theirs  until  by  their  own  free  consent 
and  practice  they  make  them  theirs. 

The  question  whether  intemperance  is  inherited 
is  discussed  by  the  doctors.  Some  of  them  say 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  inheriting  an  appe- 
tite ;  others,  like  one  writer  in  the  "  Psychological 
Journal,"  tell  us  that  "  the  most  startling  problem 
connected  with  intemperance  is  that  not  only  does 
it  affect  the  health,  morals,  and  intelligence  of  the 
offspring  of  its  votaries,  but  that  they  also  inherit 
the  fatal  tendency  and.  feel  a  craving  for  the  very 


122    WHAt  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

beverages  which  have  acted  as  poisons  on  their  sys- 
tem from  the  commencement  of  their  being."  l  This 
inheritance  of  a  specific  appetite  may  or  may  not 
be  common  ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  chil- 
dren of  drunkards  do  inherit  from  their  parents  a 
neurotic  diathesis  which  predisposes  them  to  intem- 
perance. The  nerves  and  the  stomach  are  in  a  con- 
dition which  calls  for  some  artificial  stimulant,  and 
thus  the  children  are  easily  led  into  the  slippery 
path  by  which  their  parents  went  down  to  doom.  In 
the  words  of  Bibot :  "  The  passion  known  as  dip- 
somania or  alcoholism  is  so  frequently  transmitted 
that  all  are  agreed  in  considering  its  heredity  as 
the  rule.  Not,  however,  that  the  passion  for  drink 
is  always  transmitted  in  that  identical  form,  for  it 
often  degenerates  into  mania,  idiocy,  and  hallucina- 
tion. Conversely,  insanity  in  the  parents  may  be- 
come alcoholism  in  the  descendants."  2  Some  such 
dreadful  entail  of  morbid  tendencies  is  almost  sure 
to  pass  to  the  drunkard's  children.  Yet  here  is  a 
fact  which  I  have  observed :  the  drunkard's  chil- 
dren often  live  sober  lives,  while  his  children's 
children  follow  in  his  footsteps.  This  may  be  due 
to  the  fact  that  heredity  sometimes  skips  a  genera- 
tion, but  it  is  more  probably  the  result  of  purely 
moral  causes.  The  children  of  the  drunkard  suf- 
fer so  bitterly  from  their  father's  fault  that  their 
grief  and  shame  counteract  the  hereditary  tendency, 
and  make  them  shun  the  fatal  indulgence.  Their 

1  Quoted  by  Elam,  A  Physician's  Problems,  p.  40. 

2  Heredity,  p.  85. 


WHAT  DO   WE   INHERIT?  123 

children,  inheriting  the  same  tendency  and  having 
no  such  object  lesson  before  their  eyes,  and  no  such 
moral  influence  deterring  them,  are  drawn  unawares 
into  the  ways  of  death. 

Precisely  as  intemperance  is  transmitted,  so  also 
is  pauperism  and  crime.  The  infirmities  and  ten- 
dencies out  of  which  pauperism  and  crime  naturally 
spring  are  transmitted  by  criminals  and  paupers  to 
their  offspring.  That  terrible  little  book  of  Dr. 
Dugdale's  entitled  "  The  Jukes,"  traces  the  pro- 
geny of  one  unhappy  girl  through  several  genera- 
tions. It  shows  that  of  the  700  descendants  of  this 
woman  whose  cases  were  examined,  280  became 
paupers  after  reaching  maturity.  Only  22  of  the 
TOO  had  acquired  any  property,  and  eight  of  these 
lost  it  all ;  76  were  known  to  have  been  convicted  of 
crimes  and  punished,  while  as  many  more  were  un- 
doubtedly following  criminal  courses.  More  than 
52  per  cent  of  the  females  of  this  line  followed  lives 
of  shame,  and  twenty-three  and  a  half  per  cent 
of  the  children  were  illegitimate.  Blood  tells ;  and 
no  kind  of  blood  has  a  more  impressive  story  to 
tell  than  this  kind. 

The  vices  and  excesses  of  people  of  this  class, 
their  irregular  habits,  and  their  imperfect  alimen- 
tation result  in  transmitting  to  their  progeny  con- 
stitutions undervitalized  and  tending  to  still  further 
degeneration.  Children  of  such  parentage  easily 
become  paupers.  Indolence  is  constitutional  with 
them.  We  hear  of  persons  who  were  born  tired  ;  it 
is  something  more  than  a  pleasantry.  "  If  any  law," 


124    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

says  Dr.  Bradford,  "  is  well  established,  it  is  the  law 
of  heredity  as  manifested  in  the  transmission  of 
qualities  and  tendencies  that  lead  to  vice,  pauper- 
ism, and  crime.  Indeed,  much  of  pauperism  is  only 
one  manifestation,  and  much  of  vice  is  largely  the 
outcome  of  physical  disease,  the  hereditary  nature 
of  which  we  have  already  discovered.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  dangerous  classes  have  received 
from  a  vicious  ancestry  qualities  and  tendencies 
which  with  their  environment  they  are  almost  pow- 
erless to  resist.  That  which  is  the  heritage  of  in- 
temperate and  licentious  parents,  a  weakened  vital 
state  which  almost  destroys  ambition  and  makes 
labor  seem  impossible,  society  denounces  as  laziness 
But  we  are  always  at  first  what  others  make  us." 

Such  is  a  brief  exhibit  of  some  of  the  salient 
facts  of  heredity,  facts  that  most  deeply  concern 
every  one  of  us.  For  there  is  not  one  of  us  here  who 
has  not  inherited  some  infirmities  and  tendencies  to 
evil,  who  does  not  find  in  his  nature  some  weakness 
or  bias,  for  which  he  is  indebted  to  those  whose  life  is 
in  his  veins.  And  there  are  many  among  us  who 
have  thus  come  into  the  possession  of  a  vast  estate 
of  evil  tendency,  whose  disabilities  and  predispo- 
sitions to  vice  and  crime  are  a  fearful  load. 

To  say  that  they  are  to  blame  for  this  —  that 
they  are  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God,  on 
account  of  the  misdoing  of  their  parents  or  of  any 
of  their  ancestors,  from  Adam  down  —  is  to  say 
a  horrible  thing  ;  it  comes  perilously  near  to  blas- 
phemy. They  deserve,  instead  of  wrath,  the  ten- 


WHAT  DO   WE   INHERIT  ?  -  125 

derest  pity  of  God  and  of  all  good  men  ;  and  they 
do  not  fail  to  receive  it.  The  Psalmist  says  that 
like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord 
pitieth  them  that  fear  him.  Not  only  them  that 
fear  Him,  but  them  that  are  farthest  from  Him  ; 
that  are  weakest  and  most  depraved  in  nature ; 
that  come  into  life  with  the  heaviest  encumbrance 
of  frailty  and  evil  tendency.  If  there  are  any  of 
his  children  whom  the  Heavenly  Father  loves  bet- 
ter than  the  rest  or  more  tenderly  longs  to  help, 
they  are  these.  Unless  all  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
told  us  about  the  Heavenly  Father  is  untrue,  this 
is  in  his  heart. 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  about  this  power  of 
hereditary  evil  over  the  lives  of  men  ?  Is  it  irre- 
sistible ?  That  is  a  question  in  which  some  of  us 
have  a  deep  interest.  Some  of  us  are  conscious 
that  we  are  bearing  about  in  our  lives  a  bad 
legacy ;  its  evil  impulsions  and  its  crippling  re- 
straints trouble  us  continually.  That  we  are  not 
to  blame  for  what  we  have  inherited,  we  know ; 
we  are  only  to  blame  for  the  added  strength  that 
we  have  given  to  these  bad  elements  by  yielding 
to  them  and  cherishing  them.  But  are  we  help- 
less under  their  impulse  ?  Is  it  impossible  for  us 
to  resist  and  overcome  them  ? 

Candidly,  let  me  say,  I  do  not  think  that  we  are 
helpless  ;  I  believe  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to 
resist  and  overcome.  And  this  faith  of  mine  rests, 
first  and  last,  on  the  one  great  fact  which  is  funda- 
mental in  all  my  thinking,  that  there  is  a  God,  and 


126    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

that  his  name  is  Love.  If  reason  and  goodness  are 
the  heart  of  the  universe,  then  God  has  not  per- 
mitted any  evil  force  which  we  cannot  overcome  to 
get  possession  of  your  life  or  mine.  It  may  take 
a  hard  battle,  but  there  is  nothing  better  for  any 
man  than  a  good  fight.  And  if  God  is  good  He 
has  not  sent  a  foe  against  us  that  by  his  grace 
we  may  not  conquer. 

And  this  faith  of  mine  is  supported,  too,  by 
facts  innumerable.  I  believe  that  men  can  resist 
and  overcome  the  strongest  influences  of  heredity 
because  I  have  seen  them  do  it,  over  and  over 
again.  I  have  seen  scores  and  hundreds  of  men 
and  women,  with  all  sorts  of  bad  blood  in  their 
veins,  stand  up  against  the  inbred  sin  and  fight  it 
and  conquer  it,  and  win  glorious  manhood  and 
womanhood  in  the  struggle.  That  very  fact  of 
which  we  spoke  a  few  moments  since,  that  the  chil- 
dren of  drunken  parents  often  resist  hereditary 
tendencies  while  their  children  to  whom  the  same 
influences  are  transmitted,  in  weaker  form,  suc- 
cumb to  them,  shows  what  can  be  done  when  the 
moral  nature  is  roused  to  resist  the  evil. 

Two  or  three  things  any  man  can  do,  when  he 
finds  himself  under  such  a  burden. 

First,  he  can  wish  and  determine  to  get  free  from 
it.  He  can  highly  resolve  that  nothing  that  he  can 
do  to  cast  it  off  shall  be  left  undone. 

Second,  he  can  put  himself  into  associations  and 
under  influences  which  will  help  him  in  this  fight. 
He  can  choose  for  himself  a  better  environment. 


WHAT  DO   WE  INHERIT?  127 

And  this  brings  in  a  fact  of  mighty  import  to 
which  I  can  hardly  do  more  than  allude.  Envi- 
ronment is  certainly  no  less  important  a  fact  than 
heredity.  The  inherited  tendencies  within  us  are 
no  more  powerful  in  shaping  our  ends  than  are  the 
circumstances  and  influences  round  about  us.  The 
best-born  child,  if  brought  up  in  the  slums,  is 
likely  to  be  contaminated  and  ruined  ;  the  child 
that  is  born  in  the  slums  and  is  adopted  in  infancy 
into  a  perfect  Christian  home  is  likely  to  grow  up 
into  virtue.  This  is  not  always  so ;  for  we  have 
seen  fair  flowers  blossoming  in  the  gutter,  and 
have  found,  to  our  sorrow,  that  the  most  salutary 
education  sometimes  fails  to  eliminate  an  ancestral 
taint.  And  yet,  the  main  fact  is  that  a  good  envi- 
ronment will  prevail  over  a  bad  heredity.  Dr. 
Bradford's  well-weighed  words  probably  express 
the  truth :  "  Where  there  is  no  organic  defect,  as 
in  insanity  or  idiocy,  environment  is  the  stronger 
force."  "  The  experience,"  he  says,  "  of  such  or- 
ganizations as  the  Children's  Aid  Society,  which 
seeks  to  save  children  by  placing  them  in  new  and 
better  conditions,  points  to  the  same  conclusion  ;  it 
is  all  favorable  to  the  theory  that  environment  will 
modify  heredity,  and  when  given  a  fair  chance  has 
power  to  redeem  it." 

Here,  then,  is  a  force  of  which  any  victim  of  a 
bad  heredity  may  avail  himself ;  he  may  take  him- 
self out  of  vile  associations  ;  he  may  surround 
himself  with  influences  that  will  stimulate  and 
strengthen  his  better  purposes,  his  nobler  powers. 


128    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  one  thing  which  he 
must  not  fail  to  do.  He  must  recognize  the  fact 
that  the  greatest  of  all  the  forces  that  are  working 
for  his  salvation  is  this  very  force  of  heredity. 
Heredity !  We  have  been  talking  of  it  as  a  tre- 
mendous fact,  and  it  is  ;  we  have  been  thinking 
of  it,  perhaps,  as  if  it  were  a  fact  of  significance 
purely  malign,  and  it  is  not.  There  are  two  sides 
to  heredity.  Is  the  tendency  to  sin  the  only  thing 
that  we  inherit  ?  Not  unless  God  is  a  fiend.  No, 
no  ;  goodness,  purity,  truth,  honor,  fidelity,  —  or 
the  natural  qualities  from  which  these  spring,  —  are 
also  handed  down  from  father  to  son  ;  the  pure 
stream  of  benign  influence  flows  on  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  ;  and  while  the  evil  tendency  is 
apt  to  be  noisiest  and  most  obtrusive,  the  good  is 
there,  far  more  vital,  far  more  persistent,  than  the 
evil.  The  worst  man  you  know,  in  whose  veins  is 
flowing  blood  that  a  bad  heredity  and  a  bad  envi- 
ronment have  been  conspiring  to  taint,  has  still  in 
him  many  germs  of  good  influence,  —  sentiments, 
impulses,  wishes,  that  will  spring  to  life  if  he  will 
give  them  a  chance  to  live.  To  discern  these  ele- 
ments of  good  in  his  own  nature,  to  rejoice  in 
them,  to  believe  that  in  them  his  real  self  is  mani- 
fested, to  cherish  them  as  his  dearest  possessions  — 
this  is  what  every  man  must  learn  to  do.  These  are 
the  signs  that  God  is  working  in  him  to  will  and 
to  work  of  his  good  pleasure. 

For  what,  after  all,  my  brother,  Is  the  deepest 
fact  about  this  heredity  which  has  so  sorely  trou- 


WHAT  DO   WE   INHERIT?  129 

bled  you  ?  What  is  your  parentage  ?  Whose 
child  are  you  ?  Is  not  God  your  Father  ?  Are 
you  not  made  in  his  image  ?  Is  it  not  his  nature 
that  you  have  inherited  ?  And  in  spite  of  all  that 
you  have  done,  and  of  all  that  has  been  done  by 
your  progenitors  to  mar  and  defile  the  divinity 
within  you,  it  is  there  still,  the  deepest,  the  most 
central  fact,  connected  with  your  history.  Doubt- 
less your  life  may  have  been  such  as  utterly  to  belie 
that  glorious  truth,  even  to  hide  it  from  your  own 
eyes  ;  but  it  is  the  truth  nevertheless,  and  there  is 
no  other  truth  that  means  so  much  to  you. 

This,  I  say,  is  the  fundamental  truth  about  he- 
redity. Instead  of  being  a  millstone  about  your 
neck  it  ought  to  be  the  anchor  of  your  soul,  sure 
and  steadfast.  No  matter  how  low  you  may  have 
fallen,  no  matter  what  the  disabilities  and  evil  ten- 
dencies of  your  life  may  be,  God  is  your  Father, 
his  life  is  in  you,  his  power  is  working  to  save  you. 
Sin  may  abound  in  you,  but  unto  you,  yea  in  you, 
his  grace,  if  you  will  only  receive  it,  shall  much 
more  abound. 

This  is  the  gospel,  the  glorious  gospel  of  the 
blessed  God,  the  good  news  that  Jesus  came  to 
bring.  Let  every  struggling  soul,  weighed  down 
by  inherited  tendencies  to  sin,  crying,  with  Paul, 
"  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  Who  shall  deliver 
me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  "  lay  hold  on  this 
hope  set. before  him  in  the  gospel ! 

Let  us  rise,  for  one  moment,  before  we  separate, 
to  a  point  of  view  at  which  we  can  comprehend  the 


130     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

action  of  these  forces  which  we  are  considering  in 
the  education  of  the  race. 

The  central  fact  of  heredity  is  God.  No  one 
can  believe  anything  else  who  believes  in  God  at 
all.  It  is  a  mighty  power  working  out  his  designs. 
Evil  as,  well  as  good  is  transmitted,  because  of  the 
organic  unity  of  humanity  ;  because  the  genera- 
tions must  be  sharers  of  one  another's  woes  and 
weaknesses,  if  they  are  also  to  be  sharers  in  one 
another's  joys  and  triumphs.  The  discipline  by 
which  alone  character  is  perfected  must  involve 
partnership  in  suffering  as  well  as  in  blessedness. 
But  God  is  in  his  world,  always  working  along 
these  lines  of  inheritance.  Can  any  sane  man  be- 
lieve that  he  is  on  the  side  of  evil  tendency  ?  No ; 
the  evil  is  in  its  very  nature  temporary ;  it  cancels 
itself ;  the  good  has  in  it  the  life  of  eternity.  The 
old  promise  of  the  decalogue  shows  us  a  glimpse 
of  the  truth.  "  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous 
God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon 
their  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generations 
of  them  that  hate  me,  and  showing  mercy  unto 
thousands  of  generations  [this  is  the  right  trans- 
lation] of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my  com- 
mandments." The  evil  entail  dies  out  after  a  few 
generations,  the  grace  of  God  lives  and  grows  for 
a  thousand  generations.  And  thus  in  this  very 
law  of  heredity  is  lodged  the  power  that  is  yet  to 
redeem  the  race. 

"  But  there  is  that  other  fact  of  environment," 
you  are  saying.  Yes,  thank  God.  For  what,  in 


WHAT  DO   WE   INHERIT?  131 

the  largest  sense,  is  the  environment?  It  is  God's 
universe ;  it  is  God.  It  is  the  world  whose  very 
foundations  were  laid  in  a  grand  redemptive  pur- 
pose. It  is  the  world  whose  elemental  energies,  in 
the  morning  of  the  creation,  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Christ  whose  love,  before  all  worlds, 
was  the  very  heart  of  God.  For  he  is  "  the  first- 
born of .  all  creation  ;  for  in  him  were  all  things 
created  in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth.  .  .  . 
All  things  have  been  created  through  him,  and 
unto  him  ;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  in  him 
all  things  consist."  This  is  the  environment  of 
humanity  upon  the  earth.  This  is  the  mighty,  all- 
enfolding  power  which,  with  its  slow  and  silent 
pressure,  through  the  unhasting  centuries,  is  work- 
ing out  the  great  designs  of  sovereign  love. 

Heredity  and  environment  are  the  master  words 
of  our  new  science  of  life.  I  thank  thee,  evolu- 
tionist, for  teaching  me  these  words  !  For  what  is 
heredity?  It  is  God,  working  in  us.  And  what 
is  environment  ?  It  is  God,  working  round  about 
us. 

These  are  the  larger  truths  which  the  unfolding 
thought  of  these  latter  days  is  bringing  into  clearer 
light.  What  a  new  gospel  it  is,  and  what  a  mighty 
hope  it  holds,  for  all  who  work  for  the  triumph  of 
truth  and  purity  and  peace  upon  the  earth  !  How 
sure  it  makes  us  feel  that 

"  life  shall  on  and  upward  go  : 
The  eternal  step  of  progress  beats 

To  that  great  anthem,  calm  and  slow, 
Which  God  repeats." 


132    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

How  evident  it  is  that  the  dreaded  evolution,  which 
was  to  undermine  our  faith,  has,  in  the  words  of 
Drummond,  "  ushered  a  new  hope  into  the  world." 
For  just  as  soon  as  we  are  able  to  understand  her 
voices  we  shall  know  that  "the  supreme  message 
of  Science  to  this  age  is  that  all  nature  is  on  the 
side  of  the.  man  who  tries  to  rise."  And  all  nature 
is  but  the  revelation  of  God. 

And  this,  O  church  of  God,  fumbling  so  long 
with  your  metaphysical  refinements  and  your  scho- 
lastic dogmas,  is  the  real  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God, 
which,  if  you  will  only  receive  it,  will  give  you 
strength  to  win  the  world.  For  the  heavens  above 
you,  breaking  forth  into  song,  and  the  earth  round 
about  you,  growing  conscious  of  the  presence  of  its 
Maker,  are  crying  unto  you,  and  saying,  "Arise 
and  shine,  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  is  risen  upon  thee  !  " 


VII 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   TRINITY 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  explicitly 
taught  in  any  single  passage  of  Holy  Scripture ;  it 
is  inferred  from  these  Scriptures  rather  than  for- 
mulated by  them.  This  is  not,  however,  any  con- 
clusive disproof  of  the  doctrine,  for  the  doctrinal 
formularies  of  the  Scriptures  are  few  or  none. 
Most  theological  propositions  are  gathered  by 
induction  from  the  biblical  teachings.  The  last 
commission  of  the  Master  to  his  disciples  is  as 
strong  an  intimation  of  the  truth  which  this  doc- 
trine involves  as  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Disciples  are  to  be  baptized  "into  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  implies  a  threefoldness  in  the  divin- 
ity to  whom  this  consecrating  oath  of  baptism  is 
spoken.  The  threefoldness  is  not  defined ;  per- 
haps the  abstinence  from  definition  is  here  a  mark 
of  superhuman  wisdom.  But  those  who  heard 
these  words  spoken,  after  the  confession  of  their 
faith  at  the  font  or  by  the  riverside,  must  have 
gained  some  notion  of  a  certain  threeness  in  the 
Being  to  whom  they  had  confessed  their  allegiance. 
From  these  and  many  other  words  of  Scripture  the 


134    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

thought  of  the  church  in  the  first  three  centuries 
very  easily  and  naturally  drew  the  theological 
statements  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

In  the  form  in  which  these  statements  have  come 
down  to  us  they  are  encumbered  with  insoluble 
difficulties.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in  the 
terms  in  which  I  was  first  taught  to  express  it, 
is  a  barrier  to  reason  and  a  stumbling-block  to 
faith.  It  is  only  by  shutting  the  eye  of  the  under- 
standing that  one  can  accept  it.  The  old  state- 
ment was  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  the  God- 
head, and  the  word  Person  was  supposed  to  be  the 
essential  word ;  one  must  speak  that  word  out 
clearly  or  one  was  a  heretic.  The  emphasis  put 
upon  this  word  had  the  effect  to  make  the  three- 
ness  very  distinct  and  the  unity  very  indistinct. 
. "  I  went  one  day,"  says  one  of  the  characters  in  a 
most  helpful  little  book,  "  to  our  old  minister,  Dr. 
Sandy,  who  used  to  preach  on  it  now  and  then. 
4  How,'  said  I,  '  can  three  persons  be  one  God  ? ' 
He  replied  that  the  three  are  indeed  persons,  as 
distinct  from  each  other  as  Peter,  James,  and  John, 
but  that  they  were,  notwithstanding,  one  in  the 
unity  of  a  common  divine  nature,  as  Peter,  James, 
and  John  are  one  in  the  unity  of  a  common  human 
nature." 1  This  is  the  popular  conception,  and  it  is 
purely  tritheistic.  It  is  no  slander  to  say  that  a 
great  many  Christians  in  America  have  believed 
in  three  gods.  Thus  Jonathan  Edwards,  in  his 
famous  "  Observations  upon  the  Trinity,"  con- 

1  Gloria  Patri,  by  J.  M.  Whiton,  p.  15. 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   TRINITY         135 

stantly  applies  the  pronouns  of  the  third  person 
plural  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity ;  he  speaks 
always  of  "them;"  he  tells  with  a  great  deal  of 
minuteness  what  "  they "  have  covenanted  and 
agreed  with  one  another  that  "  they  "  will  do  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  There  is  a  subordination 
among  them,  he  says,  which  "  must  be  conceived 
of  as  in  some  respect  established  by  mutual  free 
agreement  whereby  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  of 
their  own  will,  have  as  it  were  formed  themselves 
into  a  society  for  carrying  on  the  great  design  of 
glorifying  the  Deity  and  communicating  its  full- 
ness." And  again  :  "  Nothing  is  more  plain  from 
Scripture  than  that  the  Father  chooses  the  Person 
that  shall  be  the  Redeemer,  and  appoints  him  ; 
and  that  the  Son  has  his  authority  in  his  office 
wholly  from  Him  ;  which  makes  it  evident  that 
the  economy  by  which  the  Father  is  Head  of  the 
Trinity  is  prior  to  the  covenant  of  redemption. 
For  He  acts  as  such  in  the  very  making  of  that 
covenant,  in  choosing  the  Person  of  the  Redeemer 
to  be  covenanted  with  about  that  work.  The  Fa- 
ther is  the  Head  of  the  Trinity,  and  is  invested 
with  a  right  to  act  as  such,  before  the  Son  is  in- 
vested with  the  office  of  a  mediator.  Because  the 
Father,  in  the  exercise  of  his  Headship,  invests 
the  Son  with  that  office.  By  which  it  is  evident, 
that  that  establishment  by  which  the  Father  is  in- 
vested with  his  character  as  the  Head  of  the  Trin- 
ity, precedes  that  which  invests  the  Son  with  his 
character  of  mediator  ;  and  therefore  precedes  the 


136    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

covenant  of  redemption ;  which  is  the  establishment 
that  invests  the  Son  with  that  character.  If  the 
Son  were  invested  with  the  office  of  a  mediator  by 
the  same  establishment  and  agreement  of  the  Per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  by  which  the  Father  is  invested 
with  power  to  act  as  Head  of  the  Trinity,  then 
the  Father  could  not  be  said  to  elect  and  appoint 
the  Son  to  his  office  of  mediator,  and  invest  Him 
with  authority  for  it,  any  more  than  the  Son  elects 
and  invests  the  Father  with  his  character  of  Head 
of  the  Trinity ;  or  any  more  than  the  Holy  Ghost 
elects  both  the  Son  and  the  Father  to  their  several 
economical  offices  ;  and  the  Son  would  receive  his 

r 

powers  to  be  a  mediator  no  more  from  the  Father 
than  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  Because  in  this  scheme 
it  is  supposed  that  prior  to  the  covenant  of  Ke- 
demption,  all  the  Persons  act  as  upon  a  level,  and 
each  Person,  by  one  common  agreement  in  that 
covenant  of  redemption,  is  invested  with  his  proper 
office ;  the  Father  with  that  of  Head,  the  Son  with 
that  of  Mediator,  the  Spirit  with  that  of  common 
emissary  and  consummatour  of  the  designs  of  the 
other  two."1 

I  have  made  a  liberal  extract,  because  it  is  well 
for  us  to  get  the  full  flavor  of  that  old  Trinitarian- 
ism  which  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  tritheism. 
The  conception  of  the  Trinity  which  Jonathan 
Edwards  held,  and  which  has  been  held  by  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  devout  men,  is  that  of  a 

1  Observations  concerning  the  Scripture  (Economy  of  the  Trinity, 
pp.  30-32. 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY         137 

triumvirate  of  independent  deities  who  enter  into 
covenants  and  contracts  with  one  another,  who  es- 
tablish among  themselves  an  order  of  precedence, 
and  parcel  out  the  work  of  redemption  according 
to  an  economy  of  their  own  with  which  this  theolo- 
gian appears  to  be  strangely  familiar.  Of  course 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead  was  always  asserted  by 
theologians  of  this  class  ;  they  kept  saying  that 
there  was  but  one  God ;  but  the  unity  was  little 
more  than  a  barren  phrase,  in  their  conception  of 
it ;  the  over-mastering  and  all  inclusive  idea  was 
the  threeness.  So  in  all  their  doctrinal  exposi- 
tions, in  their  theories  of  the  Atonement,  in  their 
explanation  of  the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  this 
tritheistic  conception  dominated  everything.  This 
was  not  true  of  the  first  three  or  four  centuries ; 
the  Greek  theologians  who  first  wrought  out  this 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  were  great  thinkers,  and 
they  carefully  kept  themselves  out  of  these  verbal 
snares  ;  but  it  is  true  of  the  legal  and  mechanical 
theology  which  has  prevailed  in  the  Reformed 
churches  for  the  last  three  centuries.  It  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  great  church  creeds ;  neither 
the  Apostles'  Creed  nor  the  Nicene  Creed  gives 
any  footing  to  these  tritheistic  conceptions ;  they 
were  developed  in  the  attempts  of  the  later  Re- 
formers to  work  out,  under  forensic  analogies,  a 
logical  "  plan  of  salvation." 

This  tritheism  results,  as  I  .have  said,  from  the 
emphasis  placed  on  the  word  Person  in  the  defini- 
tion of  Trinity.  For  although  there  have  always 


138    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

been  various  definitions  by  which  the  word  was 
partially  explained  away,  it  has  never  been  possible 
to  vacate  the  word  of  its  natural  signification,  and 
its  implications  have  constantly  vitiated  not  only 
the  conceptions  of  the  common  people,  but  also  the 
speculations  of  the  theologians.  For  this  word 
person  cannot  be  used,  in  familiar  speech,  without 
conveying  the  two  ideas  of  consciousness  and  will. 
You  cannot  think  of  a  person  without  ascribing  to 
him  in  your  thought  both  self-consciousness  :m<l 
will.  Now  to  say  that  there  are  in  the  Godhead 
three  consciousnesses  and  three  wills  is  to  say  that 
there  are  three  gods.  I  hope  that  it  is  not  hereti- 
cal to  deny  that  there  are  three  gods  —  to  insist, 
with  old  Israel,  that  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord. 
Therefore  the  revolt  of  the  older  Unitarianism 
against  a  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  practically 
denied  the  unity  of  God  was  justified  ;  the  protest 
was  in  the  interest  of  sound  thinking  and  sound 
morality.  Let  me  give  you  authority  on  this  sub- 
ject which  will  hardly  be  questioned  —  the  word 
of  Mr.  Joseph  Cook. 

"  Have  there  not  been  teachers  who  have  held 
that  there  are  three  wills  in  God  ?  Yes.  Have 
there  not  been  in  New  England  intelligent  Chris- 
tians who  have  worshiped  three  beings  in  their 
imagination,  although  in  their  thoughts  they  have 
asserted  that  God  is  one  ?  I  fear  that  there  have 
been,  and  that  there  are  yet.  .  .  .  Are  we  to  regard 
those  as  well-educated  Christians  who  in  thoughts 
of  God  are  constantly  thinking  of  our  Lord,  as  if 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE  TRINITY        139 

he  were  at  this  hour  in  Gethsemane,  or  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  or  walking  on  the  shore  of  Gali- 
lee ;  and  of  the  Father  as  among  the  constellations ; 
and  of  the  Spirit  as  shed  down  on  us  from  the  in- 
finite spaces  :  three  wills,  three  intellects,  three  sets 
of  affections  ?  You  may  regard  such  Christians 
tenderly  ;  but  for  one,  I  regard  them  tenderly 
enough  to  wish  that  they  might  be  both  more  bibli- 
cal and  more  scientific."  "  I  had  rather,  my 
friends,  go  back  to  the  Bosphorus,  where  I  stood  a 
few  months  ago,  and  worship  with  that  emperor 
who  lately  slit  his  veins  and  went  hence  by  suicide, 
than  to  be  in  name  only  an  orthodox  believer,  or 
in  theory  to  hold  that  there  is  but  one  God,  but  in 
imagination  to  worship  three  gods.  ...  I  affirm 
that  I  had  rather  go  back  to  that  shore  of  the  azure 
water  which  connects  the  Black  Sea  with  the  Med- 
iterranean, and  omitting  the  leprosy  of  Moham- 
medanism, take  for  my  religion  pure  Theism,  than 
to  hold  that  there  are  three  gods  with  three  wills, 
three  sets  of  affections,  three  intellects,  three  con- 
sciences, and  thus  to  deny  the  assurances  of  both 
scriptural  and  scientific  truth,  and  make  of  myself 
the  beginning  of  a  polytheist,  though  calling  my- 
self orthodox."  J 

I  think  that  Mr.  Cook  bears  needlessly  hard  on 
Jonathan  Edwards  and  all  the  rest  of  the  good 
people  who  have  been  entangled  in  these  tritheis- 
tic  mazes ;  their  hearts  were  right  though  their 
heads  were  puzzled,  and  I,  for  my  part,  would  take 
1  Transcendentalism,  chap.  xi. 


140    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

my  chances  with  them  a  great  deal  sooner  than 
with  the  worshipers  on  the  banks  of  the  Bosphorus. 
Nevertheless,  Mr.  Cook  is  quite  right  in  contend- 
ing that  any  doctrine  which  loosens  the  hold  of 
men  on  the  great  central  truth  of  the  divine  unity 
is  misleading  and  dangerous.  I  am  sure  that  the 
reverence  which  is  due  to  God  has  been  weakened, 
sadly  weakened,  by  these  tritheistic  confusions. 

Still,  here  are  the  words,  the  great  commission  of 
our  Lord  and  Master :  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  make 
disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost"  Are  these  words  meaningless  ?  I 
believe  that  they  are  full  of  divine  significance.  I 
believe  that  they  convey  to  us  a  truth  which  no 
man  can  afford  to  neglect,  a  truth  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  all  sound  thinking  in  philosophy  and 
religion.  It  seems  to  me  incredible  that  a  belief 
which  has  been  held  by  the  vast  majority  of  Chris- 
tians for  eighteen  centuries  should  not  rest  on  a 
solid  substratum  of  truth.  The  forms  in  which 
this  truth  has  found  expression  may  have  been  gro- 
tesque and  inadequate,  but  the  truth  is  there  ;  men 
have  been  feeling  after  it,  though  they  could  not 
find  words  to  define  it.  We  shall  not  be  able  to 
define  it.  These  themes  that  touch  the  infinite  do 
not  lend  themselves  to  the  phrases  of  our  formal 
logic.  Far  less  is  said  than  is  left  unsaid  when  our 
weightiest  word  has  been  spoken  ;  but  if  we  look 
steadfastly  away  for  a  little  while  toward  the 
depths  of  infinite  Being,  it  may  be  possible  to  find 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        141 

a  point  or  two  of  light.  Of  course  I  ain  not  speak- 
ing at  this  time  to  those  who  have  no  faith,  but  to 
those  who  believe  in  God,  and  who  seek  to  know 
and  obey  Him. 

To  all  those  who  believe  in  God  and  worship 
Him,  the  primary  truth  about  Him  is  that  his  name 
is  Love.  That  his  crowning  attribute  is  goodness, 
not  power,  is  the  foundation  of  faith.  Science  we 
know,  and  law  we  know ;  but  the  deepest  thing  in 
the  universe  is  love.  Of  all  forms  of  Christian 
faith  this  is  the  postulate.  What  God  is  now  He 
has  been  from  all  eternity.  From  everlasting  to 
everlasting,  his  essential  nature  is  the  same.  If 
love  is  the  central  element  in  his  being  to-day,  it 
must  always  have  been  so.  But  there  must  have 
been  a  time  when  the  created  universe  was  not. 
In  that  dateless  eternity  God  was  love.  But  whom 
was  there  to  love  ?  Was  it  self-love  that  consumed 
his  infinite  energies  ?  The  thought  is  horrible, 
almost  blasphemous.  No ;  if  from  the  beginning 
God  was  love,  from  the  beginning  there  must  have 
been  in  his  very  nature  some  kind  of  manifoldness 
or  otherness,  which  could  give  scope  to  his  affec- 
tions. This  gives  us  no  hint  of  threeness  in  the 
divine  nature  ;  it  only  shows  us  that  we  must  make 
room  in  our  conceptions  for  something  other  than 
a  solitary  inhabitant  of  eternity. 

To  all  Christian  worshipers  God  is  the  "  Father 
in  heaven."  Nor  can  we  imagine  that  this  name 
expresses  any  recent  addition  to  his  attributes. 
Fatherhood  belongs  to  the  essence  of  his  being. 


142    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

It  is  not  a  function  that  He  has  taken  on  for  tem- 
porary purposes.  Not  only  is  He  the  Eternal  Ruler, 
He  is  also  the  Eternal  Father.  But  as  there  can  be 
no  son  without  a  father,  so  there  can  be  no  father 
without  a  son.  The  Eternal  Father  implies  the 
Eternal  Son.  What  all  this  signifies,  I  do  not  try 
to  tell ;  I  shall  not  imitate  Jonathan  Edwards  in 
his  dissertation  upon  the  "  CEconomy  of  the  Trin- 
ity ;  "  but  it  is  certain  that  the  word  which  sums 
up  all  our  highest  thoughts  of  God  implies  the  dis- 
tinction which  underlies  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. Of  course  these  words  are  used  symbolically  ; 
but  what  is  it  that  they  symbolize  ?  If  man  is 
made  in  the  image  of  God  there  must  be  something 
in  the  nature  of  God  to  which  these  terms  corre- 
spond. The  terms  "  Fatherhood  "  and  "  Sonship," 
says  Dr.  Fairbairn,  "  represent  love  as  native  to 
God  and  as  eternal  as  God.  For  Him  it  never 
began  to  be,  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Eternal 
Sonship.  The  love  of  man  has  a  potential  before 
it  has  an  actual  being  .  :  .  but  the  love  of  God 
had  always  an  actual,  never  a  potential  being,  for 
only  so  could  it  be  perfect  love.  .  .  .  Man  can 
never  know  a  father's  affection  unless  he  be  a 
father,  or  woman  a  mother's  love  unless  she  be  a 
mother.  The  capacity  may  be  there,  but  only  the 
capacity,  the  aptitude  to  be,  not  the  actual  being. 
But  the  Godhead  means  that  as  Fatherhood  and 
Sonship  have  been  eternal,  so  also  has  the  love. 
.  .  .  Hence  creation  did  not  mean  for  God  the 
beginning  of  love,  or  even  any  exercise  of  it."  l 
1  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  p.  410. 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   TRINITY        143 

We  are  beginning,  in  these  days,  to  understand 
that  no  man  can  be  a  man  alone.  It  is  only  in  the 
right  relations  with  others  that  he  realizes  himself. 
And  if  man  is  made  in  the  image  of  God,  there 
must  be  some  such  ethical  relation  as  this  in  God 
himself.  He  cannot  be  a  solitary  monad,  an  infi- 
nite Ego,  sitting  apart  and  speechless  through  all 
eternity.  "  The  Creator,"  says  Fairbairn,  "  is  the 
archetype  even  more  than  the  architect  of  the  cre- 
ation ;  the  Godhead  is,  as  it  were,  the  idea  and 
model  after  which  it  is  built.  He  who  is  according 
to  his  essence  a  society  makes  a  social  universe." 

Going  a  little  deeper  than  this  into  the  mysteries 
of  being,  we  find  a  foundation  in  necessary  thought 
for  that  threefoldness  which  is  involved  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity. 

What  are  the  elements  of  Knowledge?  How 
much  do  I  surely  know  ?  In  the  first  place  I  know 
myself.  I  know  the  operations  of  my  own  mind, 
the  facts  of  self-consciousness.  I  know  that  I  am 
I ;  that  I  have  certain  thoughts,  certain  feelings, 
certain  purposes ;  that  certain  pleasures  and  pains 
are  part  of  my  experience ;  that  these  successions 
of  thought  and  feeling  and  will  are  bound  together 
in  the  unity  of  a  conscious  personality. 

In  the  second  place  I  know  that  there  is  a  world 
outside  of  myself.  Forms  and  colors  and  sounds 
and  pressures  and  flavors  of  all  kinds  report  them- 
selves in  my  experience,  and  signify  to  me  the  pre- 
sence of  existences  all  about  me  with  which  I  am 
strangely  related.  The  business  of  life  is  learning 


144    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

.to  distinguish  and  classify  and  reason  about  these 
experiences,  and  to  comprehend  the  objects  and 
the  forces  which  they  bring  before  ray  thought. 
Between  myself  and  the  world  outside  of  myself 
the  distinction  is  clear  and  sharp  ;  the  "  me  "  and 
the  "not  me"  are  the  opposite  poles  of  thought. 
But  the  more  I  know  about  this  world  outside  of 
myself,  the  clearer  it  becomes  that  it  is  one  world, 
that  a  principle  of  unity  binds  all  its  phenomena 
together,  that  all  these  marvelous  varieties  of  being 
"  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole."  One 
law  of  gravitation  controls  every  particle  of  mat- 
ter in  all  these  worlds ;  one  law  of  the  conservation 
of  energy  explains  all  these  permutations  and  trans- 
formations of  force.  It  is  a  Universe  —  that  is  the 
fundamental  fact. 

And  now,  when  I  begin  to  study  a  little  more 
carefully  the  relations  between  the  "  me  "  and  the 
"  not  me,"  —  between  myself  and  the  universe  out- 
side of  myself,  —  some  very  curious  facts  at  once 
come  to  light.  The  sharp  distinction,  the  contra- 
riety, between  the  world  of  thought  within  and  the 
world  of  being  without  is  all  the  while  asserting 
itself ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  harmony  be- 
tween the  thinking  mind  and  the  objects  of  thought 
is  marvelous.  For  the  awakening  of  the  powers 
of  the  mind  itself  is  due,  no>  doubt,  to  the  action 
of  stimuli  from  the  outside  world  upon  the  senses. 
We  come  to  ourselves,  to  the  knowledge  of  our 
own  powers,  only  through  the  mediumship  of  things 
outside  of  ourselves.  The  light  which  the  baby 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        145 

sees,  the  surfaces  which  he  touches,  the  flavors 
which  he  tastes  arouse  his  perceptive  faculties,  and 
set  his  mind  at  work.  From  the  child's  first  con- 
scious moment,  the  things  that  are  round  about 
him  constantly  appeal  to  him  through  every  ave- 
nue of  sense  ;  all  manner  of  sights  and  sounds  and 
odors  are  striking  upon  his  senses  and  stirring  up 
his  intellect.  This  is  by  no  means  saying  that  all 
knowledge  comes  through  the  senses  ;  it  is  only 
saying  that  through  the  senses  come  the  stimuli  by 
which  the  mind  is  awakened. 

"  The  baby,  new  to  earth  and  sky 

What  time  his  tender  palm  is  pressed 
Against  the  arches,  of  the  breast 
Has  never  thought  that '  this  is  I ; ' 

"  But  as  he  grows  he  gathers  much, 
And  learns  the  use  of  '  I '  and  '  me  ' 
And  finds  '  I  am  not  what  I  see 
And  other  than  the  things  I  touch  ; ' 

"  So  rounds  he  to  a  separate  mind 

From  whence  clear  memory  may  begin, 
As  through  the  frame  that  binds  him  in 
His  isolation  grows  defined." 

But  not  only  do  we  find  ourselves  through  our 
contact  with  the  world  outside  of  ourselves,  it  is 
also  true  that  we  find  in  ourselves  the  interpreta- 
tion of  that  outside  world.  The  laws  of  space  and 
time,  of  cause  and  effect,  of  identity  and  resem- 
blance, of  number  and  quantity,  are  purely  ideal ; 
they  belong  to  the  furniture  of  our  own  minds ;  and 
yet  that  world  outside  of  us  is  utterly  meaningless 


146    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

and  unintelligible  until  we  have  brought  it  under 
the  light  of  these  ideas.  We  talk  about  the  laws 
of  nature,  but  these  laws  only  express  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  facts  of  nature  to  the  regulative 
ideas  of  our  own  reason.  It  is  this  correspondence 
which  is  the  marvelous  fact.  The  categories  of 
reason  supply  the  principles  by  which  all  this  out- 
side world  can  be  perfectly  explained.  We  take 
this  lamp  of  reason  and  walk  with  it  firmly  and 
fearlessly  through  every  part  of  the  universe  ;  the 
world  within  is  a  perfect  mirror  of  the  world  with- 
out. 

"  All  our  life,  then,"  says  Dr.  Edward  Caird, 
"  moves  between  these  two  terms  which  are  essen- 
tially distinct  from  and  even  opposed  to  each  other. 
Yet,  though  thus  set  in  an  antagonism  which  can 
never  cease,  because  with  its  ceasing  the  whole 
nature  of  both  would  be  subverted,  they  are  also 
essentially  related,  nor  could  either  of  them  be 
conceived  to  exist  without  the  other ;  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  one,  we  might  even  say,  is  inseparably 
the  consciousness  of  its  relation  to  the  other.  We 
know  the  object  only  as  we  bring  it  back  to  the 
unity  of  the  self ;  we  know  the  subject  only  as  we 
realize  it  in  the  object."  l 

And  now  comes  an  inference  of  mighty  signifi- 
cance, which  I  shall  let  Dr.  Caird  draw  for  you  at 
length  because  no  words  of  my  own  could  express 
it  so  clearly :  "  These  two  ideas,  between  which 
our  whole  life  of  thought  and  action  is  contained, 
1  The  Evolution  of  Religion,  p.  65. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        147 

and  from  one  to  the  other  of  which  it  is  continually 
moving,  point  back  to  a  third  idea  which  embraces 
them  both,  and  which  in  turn  constitutes  their  limit 
and  ultimate  condition.  For  when  we  have  two 
terms,  which  are  thus  essentially  distinguished  and 
essentially  related,  which  we  are  obliged  to  con- 
trast and  oppose  to  each  other,  seeing  that  they 
have  neither  of  them  any  meaning  except  as  oppo- 
site counterparts  of  each  other,  and  which  we  are 
equally  obliged  to  unite,  seeing  that  the  whole  con- 
tent of  each  is  just  its  movement  toward  the  other, 
we  are  necessarily  driven  to  think  of  these  two 
terms  as  the  manifestation  or  realization  of  a  third 
term,  which  is  higher  than  either.  .  .  .  Each  of 
them  presupposes  the  other,  and  therefore  neither 
of  them  can  be  regarded  as  producing  the  other. 
Hence,  we  are  compelled  to  think  of  them  both  as 
rooted  in  a  still  higher  principle,  which  is  at  once 
the  source  of  their  relatively  independent  existence 
and  the  all-embracing  unity  that  limits  their  inde- 
pendence. This  principle,  therefore,  may  be  im- 
aged as  a  crystal  sphere  that  holds  them  together, 
and  which,  through  its  very  transparency,  is  apt  to 
escape  our  notice,  yet  which  must  always  be  there 
as  the  condition  and  limit  of  their  operation.  To 
put  it  more  directly,  the  idea  of  an  absolute  unity 
—  which  transcends  all  the  oppositions  of  finitude, 
and  especially  the  last  opposition  which  includes 
all  others,  the  opposition  of  subject  and  object  —  is 
the  ultimate  presupposition  of  our  consciousness. 
.  .  .  The  idea  of  God,  therefore,  —  meaning  by 


148    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

that,  in  the  first  instance,  only  the  idea  of  an  abso- 
lute principle  of  unity  which  binds  in  one  '  all  think- 
ing things,  all  objects  of  all  thought,'  which  is  at 
once  the  source  of  being  to  all  things  that  are,  and 
of  knowing  to  all  beings  that  know,  —  is  an  essen- 
tial principle,  or  rather  the  ultimate  essential  prin- 
ciple of  our  intelligence,  a  principle  which  must 
manifest  itself  in  the  life  of  every  rational  creature. 
Every  creature  who  is  capable  of  the  consciousness 
of  an  objective  world  and  of  the  consciousness  of 
a  self  is  capable  also  of  the  consciousness  of  God. 
Or,  to  sum  up  the  whole  matter  in  one  word,  every 
rational  being  as  such  is  a  religious  being."  1 

Here  is  a  truth  from  which  you  can  no  more 
escape  than  you  can  escape  from  your  shadow. 
By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  all  human  beings 
have  come  to  a  realization  of  this  truth ;  there  are 
some  human  beings  who  cannot  count  twenty ; 
multitudes  to  whom  the  simplest  of  mathematical 
laws  are  utterly  unknown  ;  but  if  you  should  take 
these  people  from  the  wilds  of  Patagonia,  and  put 
them  into  a ,  primary  school,  and  explain  to  them 
the  words  in  which  these  laws  are  conveyed,  and 
show  them  these  relations  of  numbers  and  quantity, 
they  could  no  more  deny  or  doubt  them  than  they 
could  deny  or  doubt  their  own  existence.  A  man 
can  escape  from  his  shadow  by  going  into  the  dark ; 
if  he  comes  under  the  light  of  the  sun  the  shadow 
is  there.  A  man  may  be  so  mentally  undisci- 
plined that  he  does  not  recognize  the  ideas  of  which 
1  The  Evolution  of  Religion,  pp.  66-68. 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE  TRINITY         149 

we  have  been  speaking,  but  let  him  learn  the  use 
of  his  reason,  let  him  reflect  upon  his  own  mental 
processes,  and  he  will  know  that  they  are  necessary 
ideas.  When  he  knows  himself,  when  he  knows 
the  world  of  phenomena  outside  of  himself,  when 
he  becomes  conscious  of  the  fact  that  the  world 
within  and  the  world  without  are  set  over  against 
each  other  in  the  sharpest  discrimination,  and  yet 
that  they  are  so  essentially  related  to  each  other 
that  neither  has  any  life  or  order  or  significance 
without  the  other,  then  he  must,  if  he  is  a  rational 
being,  be  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  above  these 
correlated  existences  there  must  be  a  Power  by 
whom  their  correlation  is  ordained,  a  Being  from 
whom  they  both  proceed,  a  Unity  in  which  they 
cohere.  There  is  nothing  in  mathematics  more 
certain  than  this. 

Have  we  not  here,  in  these  fundamental  laws  of 
the  mind  itself,  a  suggestion  of  that  threefoldness 
which  men  are  trying  to  comprehend  when  they 
attempt  to  state  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

There  is  a  Spirit  that  witnesseth  to  our  spirits 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God. 

There  is  a  Universe  without,  a  marvelous  Crea- 
tion, from  which  the  everlasting  power  and  divinity 
shine  forth.  Of  this  Creation,  man,  who  is  made 
in  the  image  of  God,  is  the  crown ;  of  this  humanity, 
Jesus,  the  Christ  of  Nazareth,  is  the  consummation, 
the  completion,  —  Son  of  man  and  Son  of  God. 
In  him,  Paul  says,  all  things  come  to  a  Head ;  he 


150    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

is  the  explanation  of  the  Creation  ;  in  him  all 
things  consist. 

There  is  a  Living  God,  above  all  this  Universe, 
the  Infinite  and  Eternal  Power,  from  whom  all 
things  proceed ;  whose  thought  gives  it  unity, 
whose  love  is  the  soul  of  its  order  and  the  spring 
of  its  beneficence  ;  a  Being  whom  no  man  hath 
seen  nor  can  see,  but  whose  existence  is  the  pre- 
supposition of  all  coherent  thought. 

The  Absolute  and  Eternal  God,  Source  of  all 
being,  dwelling  in  light  unapproachable  ; 

The  Manifested  God,  revealed  to  us  in  Nature 
and  in  History  —  especially  and  most  perfectly  in 
the  Incarnation,  which  is  the  consummation  of  Na- 
ture and  the  goal  of  History  ; 

The  Indwelling  God,  who  reveals  himself  in  our 
thought,  who  speaks  in  our  consciences,  whose  in- 
spiration is  the  motive  power  of  all  our  best  en- 
deavors. 

Are  not  these  three  ideas  necessarily  implied  in 
all  our  thought  upon  these  highest  themes  ? 

"  The  Trinity  of  the  Living  God,"  says  Dr. 
"Whiton,  "  must  be  a  Trinity  in  His  life.  And  this, 
according  to  the  scriptural  idea  of  God  .  .  .  must 
include  these  three  terms:  the  Transcendent  Di- 
vine Life  that  is  above  the  world,  the  Immanent 
Divine  Life  that  is  universal  through  the  world 
and  perfected  in  the  Christ,  and  the  Individualized 
Divine  Life  that  is  begotten  in  each  separate  con- 
sciousness and  conscience."  1 

1  Gloria  Patri,  p.  103. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        151 

"  There  is  one  God  and  Father  of  all,"  says 
Paul  the  Apostle,  "  who  is  over  all,  and  through 
all,  and  in  all." 

So  far  as  this,  it  seems  to  me,  we  can  go  upon 
very  firm  ground.  So  much  as  this  is  contained  in 
the  necessary  implications  of  coherent  thought. 
We  know  all  this,  not  by  anybody's  testimony,  but 
by  observing  the  operations  of  our  own  minds. 
And  we  have  here  the  essential  truth  upon  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  based.  We  have 
paused,  we  shall  always  do  well  to  pause,  at  a  long 
distance  from  that  scholastic  doctrine  which  de- 
scribes and  defines  three  separate  personalities  co- 
operating in  the  work  of  redemption  ;  those  ven- 
turesome philosophizings  lead  to  very  dangerous 
errors.  But  there  is  an  essential  threefoldness  in 
the  revelation  to  us  of  the  divine  Being ;  and  we 
must  hold  firmly  to  all  these  three  terms  if  we  wish 
to  think  sanely  about  God.  He  who  believes  only 
in  an  Absolute  and  Eternal  Being,  back  of  all  phe- 
nomena, becomes  an  Agnostic  Deist,  with  a  faith 
as  pale  and  cold  as  moonlight;  there  is  no  vital 
warmth  for  the  soul  in  such  a  theory.  He  who 
believes  only  in  the  God  manifested  in  Nature  and 
History  becomes  a  Pantheist ;  with  him  moral  dis- 
tinctions are  confounded,  and  the  personality  of 
man  as  well  as  the  personality  of  God  are  hope- 
lessly obscured.  He  who  believes  only  in  the  God 
who  is  revealed  to  him  in  his  own  consciousness  is 
liable  to  drift  into  a  barren  rationalism  or  a  blind 
fanaticism.  The  solar  light  is  the  blending  of 


152    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

three  primary  rays ;  in  the  white  light  of  noon  we 
may  not  be  conscious  of  the  red,  the  green,  or  the 
violet,  but  they  are  all  there  ;  if  either  were  want- 
ing we  could  not  see  the  world  as  it  is  ;  those  who 
look  through  red  or  green  or  violet  glasses  do  not 
see  true.  So  though  we  may  not  think  of  the 
threeness  when  we  think  of  God,  those  distinctions 
lie  there,  implicit  in  our  thought,  and  clear  and 
steady  reflection  will  bring  them  all  to  light. 

These  studies  may  make  it  appear  that  this  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  not,  after  all,  to  be  dismissed 
as  a  mere  relic  of  superstition.  The  old  scholastic 
refinements  concerning  it  are  grotesque  enough,  no 
doubt,  but  there  is  a  mighty  truth  underlying  it. 
That  there  are  depths  here  which  the  plummet  of 
our  reason  fails  to  sound  is  evident  enough ;  who 
by  searching  can  find  out  God  ? 

"  Holy  and  infinite !  viewless !  eternal ! 

Veiled  in  the  glory  that,  none  can  sustain, 
None  comprehendeth  thy  being  supernal 
Nor  can  the  heaven  of  heavens  contain. 

"  Holy  and  infinite  !  limitless,  boundless, 

All  thy  perfections  and  powers  and  praise ! 
Ocean  of  mystery  !  awful  and  soundless 

All  thine  unsearchable  judgments  and  ways !  " 

Verily  we  ought  to  walk  reverently  and  with  veiled 
faces  in  the  presence  of  these  mysteries  of  being. 
But  I  trust  that  we  can  see  that  when  the  glorious 
company  of  the  apostles  and  the  noble  army  of 
martyrs  and  the  holy  church  throughout  the  world 
lift  their  united  voice  worshiping  Father,  Son,  and 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   TRINITY        153 

Holy  Ghost,  it  is  not  wholly  an  incoherent  cry,  but 
may  be,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have  thought 
most  deeply,  the  utterance  of  a  profoundly  rational 
faith. 

I  have  not  yet  mentioned  my  own  deepest  reason 
for  believing  this  doctrine.  That  is  the  testimony 
of  experience.  I  have  found  that  I  need  to  know 
God  under  all  these  characters,  —  that  each  of 
these  forms  of  revelation  meets  a  special  want  of 
my  mind  and  heart.  For  the  satisfaction  of  my 
reason,  for  the  confirmation  of  my  faith,  I  need  to 
know  him  as  the  Eternal  Father  and  Creator,  the 
Power  behind  all  phenomena,  the  great  First 
Cause  from  whom  the  universe  proceeds. 

For  the  satisfaction  of  my  heart's  deepest  crav- 
ings, I  must  also  know  him  as  Immanuel,  God  with 
us,  the  divinity  revealed  in  the  terms  of  humanity, 
the  Elder  Brother  whose  sympathy  with  me  is  per- 
fect, who  stands  by  my  side,  my  companion,  my 
yoke-fellow,  the  sharer  of  my  toil  and  my  pain.  A 
God  who  could  not  thus  be  manifested  to  me  in 
the  essential  elements  of  humanity  I  could  never 
love  nor  trust. 

I  need,  also,  to  believe  in  a  God  who  is  able  to 
hold  fellowship  and  communion  with  me  in  my 
thoughts  and  hopes  and  wishes ;  one  who  can  com- 
municate his  truth  and  his  love  and  his  strength 
and  his  calmness  to  me  in  the  very  centres  of  my 
spiritual  being ;  with  whom  I  can  talk  when  my 
eyes  are  shut  and  my  lips  are  closed,  —  who  can 
inspire  me  to  think  clearly,  to  wish  loftily,  to  strive 


154    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

nobly ;  who  can  be  with  me  always,  in  an  instant, 
when  my  heart  cries  out  for  Him,  to  strengthen  me 
for  the  conflict  or  the  suffering  of  the  hour. 

In  all  these  ways  I  need  to  know  Him  who  is  my 
unseen  and  almighty  Friend  ;  I  do  not  know  how 
the  deepest  needs  of  my  soul  could  be  satisfied  if 
I  were  deprived  of  either  of  these  revelations  of 
God.  And  while  I  am  far  from  wishing  to  set  up 
any  dogmatic  formula  of  the  contents  of  the  divine 
nature  to  which  other  men's  thoughts  must  con- 
form, I  am  glad  that  this  threefold  revelation  of 
God  is  here  in  the  Bible.  I  believe  that  all  men 
who  live  any  genuine  religious  life  —  all  men  of 
faith  and  prayer  —  really  find  God  in  all  these 
ways  that  I  have  mentioned.  Their  logic  may 
discard  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  in  their 
life  they  lay  hold  of  the  vital  truth  which  under- 
lies that  doctrine.  As  proof  of  this  let  me  quote 
from  the  "  Harvard  University  Hymn-Book  "  three 
hymns  by  eminent  Unitarians,  in  which  these 
three  aspects  of  Christian  experience  are  beauti- 
fully set  forth :  — 

The  first  is  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Longfellow, 
brother  of  the  more  famous  poet :  — 

"  God  of  the  earth,  the  sky,  the  sea, 

Maker  of  all  above,  below, 
Creation  lives  and  moves  in  thee, 
Thy  present  life  through  all  doth  flow. 

"  Thy  love  is  in  the  sunshine's  glow, 

Thy  life  is  in  the  quickening-  air ; 
When  lightnings  flash  and  storm-winds  blow, 
There  is  thy  power,  thy  law  is  there. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        155 

"  We  feel  thy  calm  at  evening's  hour, 

Thy  grandeur  in  the  march  of  night, 
And  when  the  morning  breaks  in  power, 
We  hear  thy  word,  '  Let  there  be  light.'  " 

The  second  is  by  Theodore  Parker  :  — 

"  0  Thou  great  Friend  to  all  the  sons  of  men, 

Who  once  appeared  in  humblest  guise  below, 
Sin  to  rebuke,  to  break  the  captive's  chain, 

To  call  thy  brethren  forth  from  want  and  woe,  — 

"  Thee  would  I  sing :  thy  truth  is  still  the  light 

Which  guides  the  nations,  groping  on  their  way ; 
Stumbling  and  falling  in  disastrous  night, 
Yet  hoping  ever  for  the  perfect  day. 

"  Yes  ;  thou  art  still  the  life :  thou  art  the  way 

The  holiest  know,  —  light,  life,  and  way  of  heaven ; 
And  they  who  dearest  hope  and  deepest  pray, 
Toil  by  the  light,  life,  way  that  thou  hast  given." 

The  last  is  by  Nathaniel  L.  Frothingham,  once 
professor  in  Harvard  University  and  long  minister 
of  the  First  Church  in  Boston  :  — 

' '  0  God,  whose  presence  glows  in  all 

Within,  around  us,  and  above, 
Thy  word  we  bless,  thy  name  we  call, 
Whose  word  is  truth,  whose  name  is  love. 

"  That  truth  be  with  the  heart  believed 

Of  all  who  seek  this  sacred  place, 
With  power  proclaimed,  in  peace  received, 
Our  spirit's  light,  thy  Spirit's  grace. 

"  That  love  its  holy  influence  pour 

To  keep  us  meek  and  make  us  free, 
And  throAv  its  blinding  influence  more 
Round  each  with  all  and  all  with  thee. 


156     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

"  Send  down  its  angel  to  our  side, 

Send  in  its  calm  upon  the  breast ; 
For  -we  would  know  no  other  guide, 
And  we  can  need  no  other  rest." 

There  is  no  orthodox  Christian  who  cannot  pour 
out  his  whole  heart  in  these  Unitarian  praises  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  And  no  Unitarian  who 
sings  these  hymns  should  be  too  swift  to  deny  that 
a  great  truth  underlies  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. When  we  philosophize  and  argue  we  often 
fall  apart,  but  when  we  sing  and  pray  we  come 
together.  Logic  divides  us,  but  love  unites  us. 
Let  us  argue  less  and  worship  more ;  so  shall  we 
come,  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  into  the  bonds  of 
peace. 


VIII 

THE   WORD   MADE   FLESH 

THE  subjects  which  we  have  studied  together 
are  not  easy  subjects  to  understand  ;  every  one  of 
them  brings  before  us  some  of  the  deep  mysteries 
of  existence.  But  they  are  questions  which  no 
thoughtful  man  can  help  asking,  questions  to  which, 
if  we  would  have  rest  for  our  minds,  we  must  be 
able  to  give  some  sort  of  intelligent  answer.  It  is 
not  well  for  us  to  be  dogmatic  and  intolerant  of 
opinions  which  do  not  accord  with  our  own  ;  but 
the  effort  to  form  some  reasonable  theory  of  our 
relation  to  that  world  of  reality  which  lies  back  of 
all  sensible  phenomena  is  one  that  no  right-minded 
man  can  be  excused  from  making.  We  know  — 
in  our  best  moments  we  are  deeply  conscious  — 
that  we  are  not  the  creatures  of  a  day  ;  that  our 
natures  have  their  roots  in  realities  which  lie  be- 
neath the  surface  of  things  ;  that  our  lives  are  fed 
by  fountains  beyond  the  reach  of  our  senses.  And 
we  are  not  less  sure  that  motives  which  spring  from 
a  world  unseen  and  eternal  give  to  human  charac- 
ter its  deepest  significance.  Not  to  be  profoundly 
interested  in  these  questions  is  to  renounce  our 
birthright  as  men,  and  to  descend  to  the  level  of 
the  foxes  and  the  swine. 


158    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

We  are  now  to  study  a  Character  who  claimed 
to  have  exceptional  knowledge  of  that  unseen 
world.  Whether  this  claim  is  established  I  will 
not  now  stop  to  inquire.  But  no  one  can  dispute 
the  rank  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  character  in 
history.  That  a  name  has  been  given  him  above 
every  name  is  not  a  question  for  discussion.  Over 
the  nations  which  have  been  making  history  dur- 
ing the  past  fifteen  centuries  he  has  held  an  un- 
questioned supremacy.  His  followers  now  far  out- 
number in  the  world's  population  the  adherents  of 
any  other  form  of  faith,  and  the  place  which  they 
occupy  in  the  life  of  the  world,  in  the  march  of 
civilization,  is  the  foremost  place.  The  problem 
which  this  Jesus  presents  to  human  thought  is  the 
most  profound,  the  most  interesting,  that  human 
thought  has  ever  entertained.  About  him  and  his 
gospel  and  his  kingdom  more  books  have  been 
written  than  about  any  other  subject  that  has  en- 
gaged the  minds  of  men.  Nor  is  there,  even  in  this 
scientific  age,  any  abatement  of  this  interest ;  the 
production  of  literature  bearing  upon  his  life  and 
teachings  was  never  greater  than  at  this  moment. 
Let  me  read  to  you  at  length,  from  the  pen  of  Dr. 
Fairbairn,  a  well-weighed  estimate  of  the  place 
which  he  occupies  in  human  history  :  — 

"  He  has  left  the  mark  of  his  hand  on  every 
generation  of  civilized  men  that  has  lived  since  he 
lived,  and  it  would  not  be  science  to  find  him  every- 
where and  never  to  ask  what  he  was  and  what  he 
did.  Persons  are  the  most  potent  factors  of  pro- 


THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH  159 

gress  and  change  in  history  ;  and  the  greatest  Per- 
son known  to  it  is  the  one  who  has  been  the  most 
powerful  factor  of  ordered  progress.  Who  this  is 
does  not  lie  open  to  dispute.  Jesus  Christ  is  a 
name  that  represents  the  most  wonderful  story  and 
the  profoundest  problem  on  the  field  of  history,  — 
the  one  because  the  other.  There  is  no  romance  so 
marvelous  as  the  most  prosaic  version  of  his  his- 
tory. The  Son  of  a  despised  and  hated  people, 
meanly  born,  humbly  bred,  without  letters,  without 
opportunity,  uiibef riended,  never,  save  for  one  brief 
and  fatal  moment,  the  idol  of  the  crowd,  opposed 
by  the  rich,  resisted  by  the  religious  and  the 
learned,  persecuted  unto  death  by  the  priests,  de- 
stined to  a  life  as  short  as  it  was  obscure,  issuing 
from  his  obscurity  only  to  meet  a  death  of  unpitied 
infamy,  he  yet,  by  means  of  his  very  sufferings 
and  his  cross,  enters  upon  a  throne  such  as  no 
monarch  ever  filled,  and  a  dominion  such  as  no 
Csesar  ever  exercised.  He  leads  captive  the  civi- 
lized peoples  ;  they  accept  his  words  as  law,  though 
they  confess  it  a  law  higher  than  human  nature 
likes  to  obey ;  they  build  him  churches,  they  wor- 
ship him,  they  praise  him  in  songs,  interpret  him 
in  philosophies  and  theologies  ;  they  deeply  love, 
they  madly  hate,  for  his  sake.  It  was  a  new  thing 
in  the  history  of  the  world ;  for  though  this  humble 
life  was  written  and  stood  vivid  before  the  eye  and 
imagination  of  men,  nay,  because  it  veritably  did 
so  stand,  they  honored,  loved,  served  him  as  no 
ancient  deity  had  been  honored,  loved,  or  served. 


160    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

We  may  say,  indeed,  he  was  the  first  being  who 
had  realized  for  man  the  idea  of  the  divine  ;  he 
proved  his  Godhead  by  making  God  become  a 
credible,  conceived,  real  Being  to  man.  And  all 
this  was  due  to  no  temporary  passion,  to  no  tran- 
sient madness,  such  as  now  and  then  overtakes 
peoples  as  well  as  persons.  It  has  been  the  most 
permanent  thing  in  the  history  of  mind ;  no  other 
belief  has  had  so  continuous  and  invariable  a  his- 
tory. .  .  .  Out  of  the  story,  when  viewed  in  re- 
lation to  the  course  of  human  development,  rises 
for  philosophy  the  problem,  Can  he,  so  mean  in 
life,  so  illustrious  in  history,  stand  where  he  does 
by  chance  ?  Can  he,  who  of  all  persons  is  the 
most  necessary  to  the  orderly  and  progressive 
course  of  history,  be  but  the  fortuitous  result  of  a 
chapter  of  accidents  ?  "  * 

When  the  question  is  put  in  this  way  I  am  sure 
that  we  shall  all  admit  that  it  is  entitled  to  re- 
spectful consideration.  Such  a  phenomenon  as  is 
presented  by  the  life  and  influence  of  Jesus  Christ 
requires  explanation.  I  do  not  know  that  we  shall 
be  able  to  explain  it,  but  I  am  sure  that  we  shall 
not  be  willing  to  assign  to  it  a  trivial  or  inadequate 
cause. 

The  question  which  at  once  confronts  us  when 
we  begin  to  speak  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  question, 
Was  he  human  or  divine  ?  The  question  generally 
assumes  that  an  antithesis  is  presented  :  that  if  he 
was  human  he  was  not  divine,  and  that  if  he  was 
1  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  pp.  6-8. 


THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH  161 

divine  he  was  not  human.  The  irresistible  propen- 
sity of  the  semi-educated  mind  to  put  all  truth  of 
life  and  being  into  two  sharply  discriminated  cate- 
gories, and  to  affirm  one  of  these  and  deny  the 
other,  comes  out  again  in  the  treatment  of  this 
question.  With  many  people  everything  is  either 
up  or  down,  either  right  or  left,  either  long  or  short, 
either  black  or  white,  either  sweet  or  sour ;  be- 
tween these  opposite  poles  of  thought  their  minds 
find  no  resting-place  ;  and  the  thought  of  a  higher 
unity  in  which  contrasted  truths  are  reconciled  has 
never  dawned  upon  them.  Such  minds  think  that 
when  Jesus  Christ  is  spoken  of  one  must  be  able 
to  affirm  instantly  that  he  is  either  human  or 
divine.  It  is  true  that  the  orthodox  church  dogma 
affirms  that  in  him  two  natures  are  combined  in 
one  person,  that  he  is  both  God  and  man ;  but  this 
conception  is  feebly  held  by  the  great  majority ; 
those  who  have  believed  him  to  be  divine  have  con- 
sidered his  humanity  to  be  rather  a  semblance  than 
a  reality  ;  and  those  who  have  held  him  to  be  hu- 
man have  regarded  his  divinity  as  figurative  rather 
than  literal. 

I  must  confess  that  the  theological  formula  of 
two  natures  in  one  person  conveys  to  my  mind  no 
clear  meaning.  And  I  greatly  doubt  whether 
there  are  two  kinds  of  natures  in  the  spiritual 
world,  —  a  divine  nature  and  a  human  nature. 
When  Dr.  Whiton  says  that  "  the  moral  and  spir- 
itual element,  which  is  the  essential  core  of  human- 
ity, must  be  identical  in  nature  with  the  moral  and 


162    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

spiritual  essence  of  Deity,  else  we  could  have  no 
certainty  that  righteousness  in  man  is  the  same 
kind  of  thing  that  it  is  in  God,"  1  I  am  quite  un- 
able to  find  any  flaw  in  the  statement ;  it  seems  to 
me  indubitable.  That  man  is  another  kind  of  a  be- 
ing from  God  —  a  being  with  a  different  and  con- 
trasted nature  —  is  not,  I  hope,  the  truth.  I  have 
always  supposed  that  the  statement  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God,  that  we  are  made  in  his  image, 
was  to  be  accepted  as  substantial  verity.  If  so, 
then  there  is  no  need  of  mechanically  welding  to- 
gether two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ.  He 
had  his  own  nature  ;  and  though  he  took  on  him 
the  outward  form  and  fashion  of  a  man,  there  was 
no  need  of  any  assumption  of  a  nature  foreign  to 
himself.  If  he  possessed  the  divine  nature  he  pos- 
sessed the  human  nature,  for  the  two  are  essen- 
tially one.  Was  he  more  divine  than  you  and  I  ? 
Yes  ;  because  he  was  far  more  broadly  and  grandly 
human  than  we  are,  because  humanity  in  him  was 
lifted  up  and  glorified. 

I  trust  that  our  study  of  the  supernatural  may 
have  helped  us  a  little  in  getting  hold  of  this  truth. 
In  that  discussion  we  saw  that  the  natural  and  the 
supernatural  are  only  different  sides  of  the  same 
thing ;  that  God  resides  in  and  manifests  himself 
through  every  existence  and  every  force  of  nature  ; 
that  nature  itself,  in  the  depths  of  its  being,  is  all 
supernatural.  "  Whatever  strides  science  may 
make  in  time  to  come,"  says  Mr.  Illingworth,  "  to- 

1  Gloria  Patri,  p.  55. 


THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH  163 

wards  decomposing  atoms  and  forces  into  simpler 
and  yet  simpler  elements,  those  elements  will  still 
have  issued  from  a  secret  laboratory  into  which 
science  cannot  enter ;  and  the  human  mind  will  be 
as  far  as  ever  from  knowing  what  they  really  are. 
.  .  .  Science  may  resolve  the  complicated  life  of 
the  material  universe  into  a  few  elementary  forces, 
light,  heat,  and  electricity,  and  these,  perhaps,  into 
modifications  of  some  simpler  energy ;  but  of  the 
origin  of  energy  it  knows  no  more  than  did  the 
Greeks  of  old.  Theology  asserts  that  in  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word,  and  in  Him  was  life,  the  life  of 
all  things  created ;  in  other  words,  that  He  is  the 
source  of  all  that  energy  whose  persistent,  irresist- 
ible versatility  of  action  is  forever  at  work  mould- 
ing and  clothing  and  peopling  worlds."  1 

Against  this  fundamental  statement  of  theology, 
science  has  not  one  single  word  to  say ;  the  con- 
ception gives  unity  and  coherency  to  all  her  rea- 
sonings ;  and  every  one  of  her  discoveries  makes  the 
central  truth  of  theology  more  sublimely  probable. 
The  whole  result  of  science,  as  the  writer  whom  I 
was  just  quoting  goes  on  to  say,  is  "  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  our  Christian  creed,  that  all  things  were 
made  by  the  Eternal  Reason  ;  but,  more  than  this, 
it  illustrates  and  is  illustrated  by  the  further  doc- 
trine of  his  indwelling  presence  in  the  things  of  his 
creation,  rendering  each  of  them  at  once  a  revela- 
tion and  a  prophecy,  a  thing  of  beauty  and  finished 
workmanship,  worthy  to  exist  for  its  own  sake,  and 
1  Lux  Mundi,  pp.  156, 157. 


164    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

yet  a  step  to  higher  purposes,  an  instrument  for 
grander  work. 

" '  God  tastes  an  infinite  joy, 
In  infinite  ways  —  one  everlasting  bliss, 
From  whom  all  being  emanates,  all  power 
Proceeds ;  in  whom  is  life  for  evermore, 
Yet  whom  existence  in  its  lowest  form 
Includes ;  where  dwells  enjoyment,  there  is  He : 
With  still  a  flying  point  of  bliss  remote, 
A  happiness  in  store  afar,  a  sphere 
Of  distant  glory  in  full  view.'  " 1 

If,  now,  we  are  able  to  grasp  the  fact  that  Nature 
herself  is  in  all  her  origins,  in  all  her  central 
forces,  supernatural,  we  shall  not  find  it  difficult 
to  understand  that  humanity,  in  its  essential  na- 
ture, is  divine ;  that  he  who  is  perfect  man  is,  by 
that  fact,  the  perfect  revelation  of  God  to  man. 
That  Jesus  Christ  was  the  perfect  Man,  the  ideal 
Man,  is  scarcely  disputed  by  candid  and  reverent 
students  of  history.  As  such,  he  must  be  the  man- 
ifestation of  God.  Does  not  this  philosophy  offer 
some  adequate  account  of  the  rank  that  he  has 
taken  among  men,  and  the  dominion  which  he  has 
exercised  over  them  ? 

The  one  thing  we  need  to  do  is  to  rid  ourselves 
of  the  disjunctive  notion  of  the  semi-educated  mind, 
that  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  earth  and 
heaven,  man  and  God,  are  antithetical  terms ;  that 
the  one  term  of  each  of  these  couplets  represents 
nothing  that  the  other  is  and  all  that  the  other  is 
not.  When  you  ask  me  whether  Christ  was  divine 
1  Lux  Mundi,  p.  159. 


THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH  165 

or  human  it  is  a  little  like  asking  me  whether 
the  capacity  of  a  room  is  due  to  its  length  or  its 
width.  No  matter  how  long  it  may  be,  if  it  has 
not  some  width  it  will  have  no  capacity ;  and  no 
matter  how  wide  it  may  be,  if  it  has  not  some 
length  it  will  have  no  capacity.  Both  dimensions 
must  be  represented  in  any  conceivable  area.  And 
the  element  which  we  call  human,  as  well  as  the 
element  which  we  call  divine,  must  be  represented 
in  any  spiritual  being  with  whom  it  is  possible  for 
us  to  hold  communion.  They  are  different  phases 
of  the  same  sublime  fact. 

The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  not,  then, 
and  cannot  be  any  unnatural  event,  any  inter- 
ruption or  dislocation  of  the  natural  order.  When 
Christ  said,  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill  the 
law,  his  words  had  a  deeper  meaning  than  any  of 
his  disciples  were  able  to  comprehend.  He  is  the 
fulfillment  and  completion  of  nature,  and  human 
nature,  not  less  than  of  the  Jewish  ritual.  He 
brings  to  perfect  expression  the  Word  which  was 
in  the  beginning,  and  to  which  nature  has  given, 
in  the  increasing  purpose  of  the  ages,  an  inarticu- 
late voice. 

God  has  been  abiding  in  the  world  and  manifest- 
ing himself  through  the  world  ever  since  the  morn- 
ing of  the  creation.  The  universe  is,  in  the  deep- 
est sense,  the  Word  of  God,  the  revelation  of  his 
being.  The  heavens  declare  his  glory.  Day  unto 
day  uttereth  speech  concerning  Him,  and  night 
unto  night  showeth  knowledge.  "  The  invisible 


166    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

things  of  God,"  says  Paul,  "  since  the  creation  are 
perceived  through  the  things  that  are  made."  All 
the  order  of  the  Universe,  the  order  revealed  in  the 
sublime  harmonies  of  the  solar  system,  and  in  the 
arrangement  of  leaves  on  the  branches  and  of  atoms 
in  the  molecules,  is  the  expression  of  mind.  We 
know  this,  because  it  is  all  severely  and  precisely 
mathematical ;  and  what  can  mathematics  be,  if  it 
is  not  the  revelation  of  mind  ?  It  is  in  the  king- 
doms of  life,  however,  that  the  presence  of  God  is 
most  clearly  manifest ;  for  here  is  a  subtle  force 
which  defies  all  the  analytic  skill  of  the  physicists. 
And  at  the  summit  of  the  kingdoms  of  life  stands 
man.  Evolution  shows  us  the  process  by  which 
the  immanent  God,  working  unweariedly  in  nature, 
has  brought  forth  this  heir  of  the  ages,  and  has 
prepared  him  by  a  marvelous  discipline  to  receive 
the  highest  truth,  and  to  share  in  the  glory  of  the 
Father. 

"  For  thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God, 

And  crownest  him  with  glory  and  honor, 

Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands, 

Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet, 

All  sheep  and  oxen, 

Yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the  field ; 

The  fowl  of  the  air  and  the  fish  of  the  sea, 

Whatsoever  passeth  through  the  paths  of  the  seas." 

With  the  appearance  of  man  we  see  the  work 
of  creation  approaching  its  goal.  The  organism, 
through  long  stages  of  growth  and  improvement,  is 
at  last  fitted  for  the  inbreathing  of  self-conscious 
life,  and  the  life  is  there  ready  to  be  imparted. 


THE  WORD  MADE   FLESH  167 

Every  stage  of  this  development  has  witnessed  the 
communication  of  some  higher  revelation  of  God  ; 
till  at  length  the  spirit,  made  in  the  image  of  God 
himself,  is  tabernacled  in  the  flesh.  Man  is  no 
more  a  creature,  nor  a  servant,  but  a  son.  He  is 
made  in  the  image  of  the  Father  ;  he  is  intelligent, 
conscious,  free  ;  God  has  endowed  him  with  his 
own  spiritual  attributes  ;  he  is  fitted  for  commun- 
ion and  fellowship  with  God. 

If,  now,  God  is  immanent  in  the  creation,  it  is 
evident  that  the  signs  of  his  presence  must  be  most 
clear  in  humanity,  which  is  the  crown  of  the  crea- 
tion. In  humanity  God  must  be  most  distinctly 
manifested.  And  this  is,  beyond  all  question,  the 
scriptural  idea,  and  the  idea  which  has  always 
guided  the  thought  of  the  Christian  church. 

But  the  question  arises,  How  much  of  God  is 
thus  revealed  in  nature  and  in  humanity?  His 
pow^r,  his  wisdom,  his  patience,  his  beauty,  in 
some  sense  also  his  beneficence,  have  been  found  in 
nature  by  devout  students  ;  but  it  has  often  been 
supposed  that  his  mercy  and  forgivingness  are  not 
there  revealed ;  that  for  the  knowledge  of  these 
we  must  go  to  the  Bible.  But  the  Bible  itself  is 
our  warrant  for  denying  this  doctrine.  The  mercy 
that  endureth  forever  must  have  been  known  be- 
fore men  learned  to  write.  And  Paul  tells  us  that 
not  only  God,  but  the  Christ  of  God  is  immanent 
in  the  creation  ;  that  those  divine  attributes  of  pity 
and  clemency  and  mercy  which  Jesus  reveals  in 
his  life  and  death  are  part  of  the  groundwork  of 


168    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

nature,  the  very  roots  out  of  which  the  whole  life 
of  the  world  has  grown  ;  so  that  the  Word,  which 
Christ  himself  was,  was  indeed  in  the  beginning 
with  God,  and  all  things  were  made  through  him  — 
came  into  being,  as  it  were,  through  the  channels 
of  Christliness.1  Thus  the  agelong  process  of  evo- 
lution has  been  steadily  developing  in  the  creation 
the  Christly  elements,  —  the  elements  of  love  and 
self-sacrifice ;  and  men  in  all  lands  have  seen  the 
Christ  in  nature  and  in  human  nature,  and  have 
known  that  God  was  merciful  and  gracious,  and 
have  trusted  in  Him  and  found  peace  and  salva- 
tion. 

The  advent  of  the  Son  of  man  is  then  no  sudden 
break  in  the  order  of  nature,  but  the  culmination 
and  completion  of  the  revelation  of  God.  As  Dr. 
Dale,  the  great  English  Congregational  theologian 
has  written,  Christ's  incarnation  is  not  "an  iso- 
lated and  abnormal  wonder.  It  was  God's  witness 
to  the  true  and  ideal  relation  of  all  men  to  God." 
Or  as  another  says,  "  The  historic  hour  when  the 
Word  became  flesh,  we  call  by  preeminence  the 
Incarnation,  since  in  Christ  the  Divine  Word  finds 
fullest  utterance.  But  it  is  no  detached  event ;  it 
is  the  issue  of  an  eternal  process  of  utterance,  the 
Word  '  whose  goings  forth/  as  Micah  said,  '  have 
been  from  everlasting.'  Still  it  is  true  that  to 
Christ  supremely  belongs  the  name  of  Son  which 
includes  all  the  life  that  is  begotten  of  God.  He 
is  the  beloved  and  unique  representative  of  this 
1  CoL  L  15-17. 


THE   WORD  MADE  FLESH  169 

universal  sonship ;  '  the  firstborn'  as  Paul  said, 
'  of  all  creation.''  Worthiest  to  bear  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  preeminent  but  not  exclusive 
right  is  he.  Not  only  has  he  revealed  to  orphaned 
men  their  partnership  with  him  in  the  life  and  love 
of  the  All  Father.  His  peerless  distinction  as  the 
Son  is  that  in  him  shine  at  their  brightest  those 
moral  glories  which  belong  to  the  very  crown  of 
Deity." ! 

What  need  was  there  of  this  fuller  manifesta- 
tion? 

What  need  was  there  that  the  century  plant, 
long  years  growing,  long  years  maturing,  hold- 
ing all  the  while  the  secret  of  its  life  in  its 
heart,  should  come  at  length  to  perfect  flower? 
The  life  of  the  plant  in  bloom  is  the  same  life 
that  was  in  the  plant  through  the  slow  years  of 
its  growth,  but  who  would  have  known  its  real  na- 
ture if  it  had  not,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  lifted  up 
to  the  light  that  erect  and  towering  scape,  and 
flung  to  the  breeze  its  mighty  profusion  of  bloom  ? 

What  need  was  there  in  the  long  summer  twi- 
light that  the  sun  should  rise  ?  The  light  that  first 
touched  with  ivory  fingers  the  eastern  horizon,  be- 
fore the  birds  awoke,  —  the  light  that  slowly  grew, 
from  the  faintest  dawn,  until  shapes  and  colors 
slowly  disclosed  themselves,  and  the  dripping 
leaves  and  the  freshly  bathed  flowers  stood  waiting 
for  the  glory  to  be  revealed,  —  was  the  light  of  the 
sun,  none  other ;  why,  if  we  have  some  glimmer  of 
1  Gloria  Patri,  p.  92. 


170    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

that  light,  by  which  in  the  gloaming  we  may  grope 
along  our  path,  should  there  be  any  need  on  earth 
of  the  sun's  rejoicing  ray  ? 

I  think  that  my  questions  answer  yours.  There 
is  always  need  that  life  shall  complete  itself.  It  is 
the  one  supremely  needful  thing.  The  moral  im- 
perative springs  directly  out  of  that  need.  As  one 
has  said,  "  The  evident  end  of  any  being  is  to  be, 
according  to  the  nature  given  to  him.  If  the  rose 
does  not  blossom,  if  the  bee  does  not  fly  and  gather 
honey,  we  say  they  have  not  fulfilled  their  desti- 
nies." That  need  is  a  part  of  the  very  nature  of 
things.  Humanity,  as  truly  as  the  century  plant, 
needs  to  come  to  perfect  flower.  Such  a  need  is 
inherent  in  itself,  as  the  highest  type  of  being  in 
the  creation. 

But  there  is  a  deeper  need  here,  to  the  under- 
standing of  which  we  do  not  attain  by  studying  the 
life  of  the  plant.  The  century  plant  has  in  itself 
its  own  impulse  to  complete  its  life ;  but  its  pro- 
gress toward  perfection  may  be  greatly  assisted. 
If  the  gardener  knows  the  nature  of  this  plant, 
knows  what  it  is  in  its  perfection,  he  knows  how  to 
work  and  how  to  wait  for  that  perfection.  Unless 
he  does  know  this,  his  labor  of  cultivation  may  be 
misdirected,  may  be  abandoned  before  the  plant 
has  come  to  flower.  The  ideal  of  the  plant  must 
be  before  his  mind  in  order  that  his  treatment  of 
it  may  be  intelligent. 

Now  every  man  has  in  himself  this  double  life. 
He  is  both  plant  and  gardener.  He  has  a  nature 


THE  WORD   MADE   FLESH  171 

to  be  developed  and  perfected ;  lie  has  an  intelli- 
gence and  a  will  by  which  this  perfection  is  to  be 
secured.  Therefore  he  must  know  what  human 
perfection  is,  in  order  that  his  work  to  secure  it 
may  be  wisely  directed.  He  must  see  humanity  in 
perfect  flower,  in  order  that  he  may  comprehend 
his  own  humanity  in  its  completeness.  If  the  evi- 
dent "  end  of  any  being  is  to  be,"  how  evident  is 
the  necessity  that  any  being  to  whom,  in  some 
large  measure,  its  own  destiny  is  committed,  should 
be  able  to  conjugate,  in  all  its  moods  and  tenses, 
that  great  verb  to  be;  how  evident  the  necessity 
that  every  man  should  somehow  have  before  him, 
for  his  guidance,  the  figure  of  the  perfect  man  ! 

Man  is  always  an  idealist.  He  is  not  merely 
impelled,  as  the  plant  is,  by  forces  which  he  can- 
not resist ;  he  is  led  and  allured -by  visions  that  go 
before  him  and  that  beckon  him  on.  All  his  real 
gains  are  made  by  his  voluntary  pursuit  of  the 
ideals  thus  presented  to  his  choice.  It  is  not  by 
what  he  is  driven  to  do  that  he  wins  perfection,  but 
by  what  he  aims  to  do,  and  strives  to  do.  Herein 
resides  the  very  secret  of  his  manhood.  And  hence 
arises  the  need  that  there  should  be  clearly  revealed 
and  manifested  to  him  the  end  at  which  he  ought 
to  aim,  the  perfection  for  which  he  is  bound  to 
strive. 

It  was  needful,  therefore,  that  the  life  should  be 
manifested ;  that  the  Word  should  become  flesh 
and  dwell  among  us,  that  we  might  behold  his 
glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 


172    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.  The  advent  of 
the  Son  of  man  had  relations  to  the  world's  sin 
and  the  world's  need  of  which  we  shall  treat  in 
another  chapter.  His  work  in  the  world  was  con- 
ditioned by  the  world's  suffering  and  woe.  But  if 
the  shadow  of  sin  had  never  fallen  upon  this 
planet,  that  perfect  manifestation  of  the  divine 
humanity  which  he  was  would  surely  have  been 
made  to  men.  The  Word  which  was  spoken  in 
the  beginning,  and  which,  under  its  threefold  sig- 
nificance of  Law  and  Life  and  Love,  had  been 
finding  faint  and  incoherent  utterance  through  the 
ages,  must  at  length  have  come  to  such  clear  artic- 
ulation as  it  found  in  the  life  of  Him  who  was,  in 
a  measure  that  no  other  of  mortals  could  claim  to 
be,  both  Son  of  man  and  Son  of  God. 

Let  us   gather  up  the    strands   of   this  discus- 
sion :  — 

1.  God  is  in  his  world,  and  has  been  since  the 
morning  of  the  Creation,  visible  there  to  the  pure  in 
heart.     The  immanent  God  is  the  Life  of  all  life. 

2.  Christ  is  in  his  world,  and  has  been  since  the 
morning  of  the  Creation.     The  Word  was  in  the 
beginning    with   God.       All    things    were    made 
through   him ;  all  things  that  live  have  in  them- 
selves the  elements  of  Christliness.     Love  and  self- 
sacrifice  are  at  the  very  heart  of  nature. 

3.  This  Word  of  God,  the  Word  of  sympathy, 
of  mercy,  of  forgivingness,  has  been  struggling  into 
speech  from  the  beginning ;  many  have  dimly  un- 
derstood it,  and  found  salvation  by  trusting  in  it. 


THE  WORD  MADE  FLESH  173 

4.  In  the  fullness  of  time,  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
the  Word  was  made  flesh.  In  him,  for  the  first 
and  only  time  in  history,  the  Word  of  God  found 
clear  and  perfect  articulate  expression.  He  was 
the  ideal  man,  the  consummation  and  the  crown  of 
humanity,  and  therefore  he  was  the  manifestation 
of  God. 

"  Deep  strike  thy  roots,  0  heavenly  Vine, 

Within  our  earthly  sod, 
Most  human,  and  yet  most  divine, 
The  flower  of  man  and  God." 


IX 

HOW   CHRIST    SAVES  MEN 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is  generally 
regarded  as  the  central  doctrine  of  the  evangelical 
system,  and  a  brief  sketch  of  the  history  of  this 
doctrine  would  be  instructive  to  those  who  imagine 
that  orthodoxy,  in  the  words  of  Vincent  of  Lerins, 
is  that  which  has  been  believed  "always,  every- 
where, and  by  all."  This  idea  of  the  immutability 
of  Christian  doctrine  will  scarcely  survive  even 
a  cursory  reading  of  any  history  of  dogma.  The 
forms  through  which  belief  has  passed  are  many 
and  various.  Evolution  may  lack  credentials  in 
the  kingdoms  of  physical  life,  but  here  in  theology 
its  reign  is  undisputed.  All  the  great  facts  with 
which  the  Darwinian  theory  makes  us  familiar  — 
variation,  hereditary  transmission,  natural  (in  this 
case  spiritual)  selection,  and  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  —  stand  out  in  the  clearest  light  on  this  field 
of  dogmatics. 

The  tendency  to  produce  multitudinous  varieties 
of  belief  on  all  these  subjects  is  always  present; 
these  beliefs  at  once  come  into  conflict  and  there 
is  a  struggle  for  life  among  them ;  those  survive 
which  are  most  in  harmony  with  their  environ- 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  175 

ment.  The  great  fact  is,  moreover,  that  the  en- 
vironment is  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the 
church,  which  is  more  and  more  pervaded  by 
the  spirit  of  Christ.  The  spiritual  progress  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  carried  forward  in  the  realm 
of  the  affections  ;  the  gentleness  and  patience  and 
purity  of  Christ  are  communicated  from  life  to  life ; 
the  parable  of  the  leaven  is  in  constant  course  of 
verification.  It  is  thus  that  the  world  grows  bet- 
ter, and  the  theories  of  the  thinkers,  subjected  to 
the  acceptance  of  this  purified  Christian  conscious- 
ness, are  constantly  modified  for  the  better ;  their 
crudities  and  immoralities  are  gradually  winnowed 
away ;  loftier  conceptions,  worthier  ideals,  find  ex- 
pression in  them.  Every  century  drops  some  forms 
of  dogmatic  statement,  because  they  have  become 
repugnant  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  people,  or  in- 
credible to  their  wider  intellectual  vision.  This  is 
the  process  which  a  stupid  conservatism  vainly 
seeks  to  arrest.  It  is  common  to  hear  modifica- 
tions of  this  nature  attributed  to  satanic  agency ; 
the  truth  being  that  these  are  proofs  of  the  living 
presence  of  God  in  his  church  and  in  his  world. 
It  is  what  He  has  been  doing  in  the  hearts  and  the 
lives  of  men  that  has  made  these  changes  necessary. 
The  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  will 
make  this  plain. 

In  the  first  two  or  three  centuries  there  was  but 
little  theorizing  about  the  work  of  Christ.  Those 
old  Fathers  recognized  Christ  as  a  Saviour ;  they 
trusted  him,  and  followed  him,  and  found  the  way 


176    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

to  peace  and  strength  by  a  living  fellowship  with 
him.  As  to  the  explanation  of  all  this  they  did 
not  seem  to  care.  Irena3us,  who  taught  in  the  last 
half  of  the  second  century,  says  that  through  sin 
man  had  become  alienated  from  God,  and  that 
Christ  became  man  in  order  to  reunite  God  and 
man.  The  theoretical  fabric  in  this  teaching  is 
slight.  Christ  redeems  us  and  reconciles  us  to 
God,  but  just  how  he  does  not  try  to  tell.  He 
does,  however,  use  the  word  "  ransom," -  — a  word 
which  was  destined  in  the  next  thousand  years  to 
play  a  large  part  in  the  development  of  the  theory 
of  the  Atonement.  So  far  as  the  early  church  had 
a  theory  of  the  work  of  Christ,  this  theory  of  ran- 
som was  most  widely  accepted  as  the  explanation. 
There  were  those  who  criticised  it  as  morally  un- 
sound, but  their  objections  did  not  prevail. 

The  theory  is  based  on  a  word  which  Jesus  used 
once,  when  he  said,  "  The  Son  of  man  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many ; "  and  which  Paul  used 
once,  when  he  spoke  of  Jesus  as  having  given  him- 
self as  "  a  ransom  for  all "  (1  Tim.  ii.  6).  The 
words  "redeem"  and  "redemption"  do,  however, 
convey  the  same  idea,  and  they  are  found  fre- 
quently in  the  New  Testament.  A  ransom  is  a 
sum  of  money  paid  to  a  captor  for  the  release  of  a 
captive  or  prisoner.  He  who  pays  the  ransom  is 
called  the  redeemer ;  the  act  is  redemption.  When 
Christ,  or  the  blood  of  Christ,  began  to  be  spoken 
of  as  a  ransom,  those  who  wished  to  understand  the 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  177 

meaning  of  the  words  they  were  using  began  to  ask 
to  whom  this  ransom  was  paid,  and  who  paid  it. 
The  answer,  which  was  first  spoken  rather  hesitat- 
ingly, but  afterward  came  to  be  affirmed  with  con- 
fidence, was  that  the  ransom  was  given  to  Satan, 
and  that  it  was  paid  him  by  God,  for  the  release 
of  the  human  race  from  bondage  to  the  Prince  of 
Evil.  The  theory  was  that  man  by  the  fall  had 
passed  under  the  power  of  the  devil.  The  devil 
had  thus  gained  a  legal  right  to  humanity,  a  right 
which  God  himself  was  bound  to  respect.  To  dis- 
possess him  of  his  captives  a  ransom  must  be  paid. 
Satan  accepted  the  person  of  Christ  as  the  ransom, 
and  thus  lost  his  claim  upon  the  race.  As  formu- 
lated in  the  fourth  century  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Hagenbach  thus  summarizes  it :  "  Men  have  become 
slaves  of  the  devil  by  sin.  Jesus  offered  himself  to 
the  devil  as  the  ransom  which  should  release  all 
others.  The  crafty  devil  assented  because  he  cared 
more  for  this  one  Jesus,  so  much  superior  to  them, 
than  for  all  the  rest.  But  notwithstanding  his 
craft  he  was  deceived,  since  he  could  not  retain 
Jesus  in  his  power.  It  was,  as  it  were,  a  deception 
on  the  part  of  God  (aTmr?;  TIS  «TTI  TpoTrov  TWO)  that 
Jesus  veiled  his  divine  nature,  which  the  devil  would 
have  feared,  by  means  of  his  humanity,  and  thus 
deceived  the  devil  by  the  appearance  of  flesh.  But 
Gregory  allows  such  a  deception  according  to  the 
lex  talionis  ;  the  devil  had  first  deceived  men,  for 
the  purpose  of  seducing  them ;  but  the  design  of 
God  in  deceiving  the  devil  was  a  good  one,  viz.,  to 


178    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

redeem  mankind.  Gregory's  argument  looks  very 
much  like  the  well-known  maxim  that  'the  end 
justifies  the  means.'  This  dramatic  representation 
of  the  subject  includes,  however,  that  other  more 
profound  idea,  carried  out  with  much  ingenuity  in 
many  of  the  wondrous  legends  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
that  the  devil,  notwithstanding  his  subtilty,  is  at 
last  outwitted  by  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  appears 
in  the  comparison  as  a  stupid  devil."  1 

That,  by  the  way,  is  a  very  profound  truth.  It 
is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  to  believe  that  the  devil 
is  a  fool,  that  is  to  say,  that  concentrated  selfish- 
ness and  malice  is  the  essence  of  stupidity.  So  far 
these  old  theologians  were  right.  But  what  a  con- 
ception is  this  of  the  work  of  salvation!  What 
kind  of  moral  sense  had  the  men  who  could  con- 
ceive of  God  as  entering  into  a  transaction  of  this 
sort  ?  What  kind  of  a  deity  is  this  who  is  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  playing  a  sharp  trick  to  get  the 
advantage  of  the  devil  ?  The  figures  used  by  these 
theologians  are  so  grotesque  that  it  is  difficult  to 
quote  them  without  incurring  the  charge  of  treat- 
ing sacred  themes  with  levity.  But  it  is  needful 
that  we  should  know  through  what  phases  of  human 
misconception  and  moral  confusion  this  truth  of 
the  Atonement  has  passed.  One  of  the  favorite 
figures  was  that  of  the  fish-hook.  The  divine 
nature  of  Christ  was  the  hook ;  his  human  nature 
—  his  flesh  —  was  the  bait ;  Satan  bit  at  the  bait 
without  seeing  the  hook.  Peter  Lombard  prefers 

1  History  of  Doctrine,  §  134. 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  179 

the  figure  of  a  trap,  of  which  the  flesh  was  the  bait. 
The  general  conception  is  that  Satan  was  in  some 
way  outwitted  in  the  transaction.  This  man  Christ 
Jesus  was  undermining  his  kingdom  ;  he  must  get 
possession  of  him  as  his  archenemy ;  to  secure  him 
he  was  willing  to  let  go  his  legal  claim  on  the  race, 
and  when  he  had  secured  him  he  could  not  hold 
him ;  he  could  torture  and  kill  his  body,  but  the 
divine  nature  escaped  his  clutches,  and  rose  from 
the  dead  to  lead  the  emancipated  race  out  of  its 
bondage. 

Origen  varies  this  interpretation  by  explaining 
the  escape  of  Christ  from  the  power  of  the  devil  as 
a  moral  rather  than  a  miraculous  transaction.  It 
was  not  because  his  divinity  overpowered  the  ad- 
versary that  he  got  free  ;  it  was  because  his  nature 
was  Love,  and  the  devil  could  not  endure  the  pre- 
sence of  a  benevolent  spirit  and  was  glad  to  let  him 
go.  Some  of  the  later  Fathers  explain  the  Atone- 
ment, not  as  a  ransom,  but  as  a  combat  between 
Christ  and  Belial,  in  which  the  latter  was  worsted 
and  compelled  to  surrender  his  prey.  This  is  not, 
in  their  conception,  a  merely  figurative  battle,  but 
a  real  duel,  in  which  the  Son  of  God  was  victorious 
over  the  Prince  of  this  world. 

For  fully  a  thousand  years  this  idea  of  the  Atone- 
ment as  consisting  in  the  rescue  of  the  human  race 
from  the  dominion  of  the  devil,  either  by  outwitting 
or  overpowering  him,  was  the  prevailing  theory  in 
the  church.  There  were  men  who  did  not  wholly 
accept  it,  men  to  whom  its  moral  crudity  was 


180    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

repulsive  ;  but  the  great  majority  of  devout  people 
knew  no  other  explanation  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
and  to  call  in  question  this  account  of  his  mission 
exposed  one  to  the  gravest  suspicions  of  heresy. 
When  Abelard,  in  the  twelfth  century,  ventured 
to  question  whether  the  devil  really  had  any  rights 
in  the  human  race,  and  whether  any  such  transac- 
tion as  this  for  their  release  ever  took  place,  that 
great  hero  of  the  faith,  St.  Bernard,  declared  that  a 
man  who  disputed  a  doctrine  so  essential  as  this 
should  not  be  reasoned  with,  but  chastised  with 
rods. 

Nevertheless,  the  explanation  gradually  became 
incredible.  As  men's  ideas  of  justice  and  honor 
and  probity  were  elevated  and  purified,  it  became 
evident  that  the  relations  and  motives  and  prac- 
tices ascribed  to  God  in  these  theories  were  impos- 
sible. The  explanation  ceased  to  explain.  It  in- 
volved the  whole  subject  in  darkness  rather  than 
light. 

Other  explanations  were  attempted.  Chief 
among  these  was  that  of  Anselm.  In  this  theory 
the  devil  wholly  disappears  ;  the  figure  of  ransom 
is  dropped,  and  the  figure  of  debt  takes  its  place. 
Obedience  is  the  honor  which  man  owes  to  God  ; 
the  disobedience  of  the  race  has  involved  human- 
kind in  hopeless  debt.  For  past  sin  present  obedi- 
ence.cannot  atone ;  how  can  that  debt  be  cleared 
away  ?  Christ  as  the  God  man  perfectly  obeys  the 
law  ;  to  that  he  was  bound.  But  his  sinless  death 
was  not  due  ;  no  obligation  required  that  of  him  ; 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES   MEN  181 

and  by  giving-  his  life  he  wrought  a  great  work  of 
supererogation  and  accumulated  a  fund  of  surplus 
merit,  infinite  in  amount,  out  of  which  he  pays 
the  debts  of  all  believers.  This  is  known  as  the 
commercial  theory.  In  Anselm's  exposition  it  is 
somewhat  less  bald  than  in  my  abbreviated  state- 
ment, yet  in  its  best  form  it  is  a  dismal  travesty 
of  the  great  fact  which  it  seeks  to  explain.  How 
can  one  moral  being,  by  unmerited  suffering,  accu- 
mulate a  fund  of  virtue  out  of  which  the  moral  ob- 
ligations of  other  moral  beings  can  be  discharged  ? 
Moral  obligations  cannot  be  transferred  from  one 
to  another  after  this  manner.  Yet  this  theory 
lingers  in  some  of  our  hymns,  and  still  vitiates 
much  of  our  thinking  on  this  transcendent  theme. 

Following  this  came  the  purely  legal  conception, 
—  the  theory  of  a  legal  or  penal  substitution. 
The  penalty  of  sin  is  death  ;  all  men  have  sinned 
and  are  exposed  to  the  penalty ;  Christ  volun- 
tarily endures  the  penalty,  in  our  stead,  and  thus 
secures  our  salvation.  This  theory  made  room  for 
Universalism.  The  original  Universalists  argued 
that  sin  could  not  be  punished  twice  ;  and  that 
since  Christ  bore  the  penalty  for  all,  all  must  go 
free.  That  seems  a  logical  inference.  The  later 
Universalists,  I  need  not  say,  have  based  their 
belief  in  the  final  salvation  of  all  men  upon  other 
reasonings  than  these. 

There  has  always  been  difficulty  in  explaining 
this  theory.  To  begin  with,  the  transfer  of  pen- 
alty is  essentially  unjust  and  unmoral.  That  the 


182    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

substitute  consents  does  not  acquit  the  judge  of 
injustice.  Governments  can  tolerate  no  such  trans- 
actions. Moreover,  we  are  told  that  the  penalty  of 
sin  is  death.  What  kind  of  death  ?  All  kinds 
of  death,  the  answer  is  ;  everything  that  the  word 
means,  —  physical,  spiritual,  and  eternal  death. 
Did  Christ  suffer  all  these  ?  Yes,  said  some  of 
the  old  theologians.  They  would  follow  their  logic. 
His  body  died  on  the  cross  ;  he  was  separated 
from  God  and  left  in  utter  spiritual  darkness  ;  he 
suffered  the  literal  pains  of  hell  in  his  soul.  Lu- 
ther said  that  Christ  became,  for  our  sakes,  a  thief, 
a  murderer,  an  adulterer,  and  took  the  whole  pen- 
alty of  the  law  upon  himself. 

But  from  this  horrible  doctrine  men  began  to 
revolt.  That  Christ  could  have  actually  endured 
the  penalty  of  our  sins  was  incredible.  Part 
of  the  penalty  of  sin  —  the  bitterest  part  of  it  — 
is  remorse  ;  could  he  have  felt  remorse  ?  In  what 
sense  could  the  pains  of  hell  have  been  inflicted 
on  him  ?  There  never  was  a  moment  when  his 
thought  was  not  pure,  when  his  conscience  was 
not  clear,  when  his  heart  was  not  full  of  love  to 
every  creature.  Can  such  a  spirit  suffer  the  pains 
of  hell  ?  The  real  penalty  of  sin  is  spiritual  death, 
and  that  means  depraved  appetites,  unbridled  pas- 
sions, groveling  animalism,  rampant  selfishness, 
disinterested  malice.  This  is  the  condition  which 
sin  bringeth  forth  when  it  is  finished.  Is  it  not 
monstrous  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  ever  experi- 
enced anything  like  this  ?  If  he  did  not,  then  it 


HOW   CHRIST  SAVES   MEN  183 

is  absurd  to  say  that  he  suffered  the  penalty  of  sin. 
This  theory,  in  its  turn,  became  incredible.  Men 
saw  that  all  moral  standards  were  confounded  and 
perverted  by  saying  that  Christ  endured  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  as  our  substitute.  It  was  not  the 
penalty  of  the  law ;  it  could  not  have  been,  they 
said ;  it  must  have  been  something  else ;  what 
was  it  ? 

To  this  the  great  Dutch  jurist,  Grotius,  made 
reply  in  what  has  since  been  known  as  the  gov- 
ernmental theory,  that  the  sufferings  inflicted  on 
Christ  were  not  penal,  but  illustrative.  They  are 
intended  as  an  impressive  exhibition  of  God's 
hatred  of  sin.  To  the  spectacle  of  the  cross  God 
seems  to  be  pointing  all  sinners,  saying  to  them, 
"  Thus  ought  you  to  suffer.  This  Being  does  not 
deserve  to  suffer,  and  his  sufferings  do  not  signify 
any  wrath  on  my  part ;  but  he  has  consented  to 
endure  them,  and  I  am  inflicting  them  upon  him, 
in  the  presence  of  the  universe,  in  order  that  all 
may  see  how  greatly  I  abhor  sin." 

This  theory  was  meant  to  relieve  the  imputation 
upon  the  justice  of  God  involved  in  the  theory  of 
penal  substitution.  To  some  minds  it  still  affords 
such  relief.  But  there  are  many  who  have  ceased 
to  find  any  satisfaction  in  it.  If  it  is  not  unmoral, 
it  is  essentially  unreal  —  even  theatrical.  To  treat 
one  who  is  not  a  sinner  as  though  he  were  a  sinner, 
in  order  that  sinners  may  see  how  they  ought  to  be 
treated,  does  not  seem  to  comport  with  the  dignity 
and  directness  of  the  divine  administration.  To 


184    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

many  minds   this   explanation  has   ceased   to   be 
credible. 

For  myself  I  must  say  that  all  these  attempts  to 
interpret  the  work  of  Christ  by  judicial  and  foren- 
sic and  governmental  analogies  seem  to  me  very 
lame  and  impotent.  Governmental  figures  may  be 
used  in  dealing  with  them,  if  only  we  remember 
that  they  are  figures,  and  do  not  proceed  to  harden 
them  into  theories.  The  apostles  use  these  figures  ; 
aspects  of  the  work  of  salvation  may  be  shadowed 
forth  by  them.  But  when  we  attempt  to  make 
philosophical  formularies  out  of  them  we  are  as  far 
astray  as  one  would  be  who  undertook  to  deduce 
the  anatomy  of  a  skylark  from  Shelley's  poem. 
In  truth  the  ethical  and  spiritual  values  with  which 
we  are  concerned  in  trying  to  tell  what  Christ  has 
done  for  men  can  never  be  expressed  in  terms  of 
human  jurisprudence.  When  we  reason  from  what 
such  human  rulers  as  we  know  think  it  expedient 
for  them  to  do  in  dealing  with  offenders,  to  what 
the  Infinite  Wisdom  and  Love  will  do  in  reclaiming 
his  wandering  children  we  are  not  going  on  firm 
ground.  Many  things  are  authorized  by  legisla- 
tures and  done  by  courts  and  magistrates  which 
the  Eternal  Justice  could  never  tolerate.  In  all  our 
criminal  courts,  for  example,  penalty  may  be  com- 
muted with  money.  There  are  many  offenses  for 
which  the  rich  man  goes  free,  while  the  poor  man 
goes  to  jail.  He  who  possesses  or  can  borrow  the 
money  to  pay  his  fine  walks  abroad  ;  he  who  has 
neither  purse  nor  friend  must  submit  to  the  treat- 


185 

ment  of  a  malefactor.  This  whole v  institution  of 
fines  is  utterly  and  abominably  unjust,  albeit  we 
call  it  justice.  The  day  will  come  when  we  shall 
abolish  all  such  iniquities,  and  when  the  rich  man 
will  be  compelled  to  take  the  same  kind  of  pun- 
ishment that  the  poor  man  must  endure.  But 
such  ethical  anomalies  still  appear  in  our  jurispru- 
dence ;  and  it  is  precisely  upon  conditions  of  this 
sort  that  some  of  the  forensic  theories  of  the  Atone- 
ment are  founded.  We  ought  to  be  admonished 
that  such  analogies  will  lead  us  astray. 

Indeed,  it  should  be  said  that  all  the  recent  mas- 
ters in  theological  science  have  abandoned  these 
governmental  theories  as  inadequate.  I  have  been 
looking  over  Professor  Fisher's  abstracts  of  the 
teaching  of  such  great  evangelical  theologians  as 
Nitzsch  and  Rothe  and  Julius  Miiller,  and  I  can- 
not find  that  any  of  them  teach  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  judicially  inflicted  upon  him  by  the 
Father,  for  the  vindication  of  justice  or  the  confir- 
mation of  government.  To  show  how  greatly  the 
view  of  the  church  has  changed,  let  me  quote  a  few 
words  from  the  last  Professor  of  Systematic  The- 
ology in  Andover,  Professor  George  Harris  :  — 

"  The  doctrine  which  has  undergone  the  greatest 
modification  from  purely  ethical  influences  is  the 
doctrine  of  redemption  from  sin.  Until  recently 
the  usual  representations  of  atonement  were  justly 
open  to  the  charge  of  immorality.  Even  now  such 
representations  continue  to  be  made  to  a  consider- 
able degree.  The  moral  sense  is  shocked  at  some 


186     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

of  the  reasons  given  for  atonement.  The  imputa- 
tion of  our  sins  to  Christ  has  been  so  stated  that  it 
seemed  as  if  all  regard  for  righteousness  had  been 
overlooked.  The  penal  suffering  of  Christ  was 
regarded  as  the  philosophy  of  atonement.  It  was 
believed  that  God  laid  on  Christ  the  penalty  of  our 
sins,  or  a  suffering  equivalent  to  that  penalty. 
The  atonement  was  represented  as  an  arrangement 
satisfactory  to  God,  but  incomprehensible  to  us. 
The  fact  that  character  and  its  consequences  cau- 
not  be  transferred  from  one  person  to  another  was 
contradicted  by  the  theory  that  Christ  suffered 
what  we  otherwise  should  have  suffered.  .  .  .  The 
love  of  Christ  making  its  great  way  to  men  at  the 
cost  of  suffering  is  the  motive  which  leads  men  to 
repentance,  but  has  been  represented  as  the  motive 
which  induces  God  to  forgive.  This  disappearing 
theory  fails  to  satisfy  because  it  is  immoral,  be- 
cause it  places  salvation  somewhere  else  than  in 
character,  because  it  converts  the  sympathy  and 
love  of  Christ  into  legal  fictions,  because  it  places 
the  ethical  demands  of  justice  above  the  ethical 
necessities  of  love.  It  is,  indeed,  through  the  self- 
sacrifice  of  Christ  that  we  are  recovered  from  self- 
ishness to  goodness  and  love.  He  bore  our  sins. 
He  suffered  on  account  of  our  sins.  He  brings  us 
back  to  God,  for  he  reveals  God  to  us  in  his  real 
character.  But  that  is  very  different  from  mercan- 
tile or  forensic  transference  of  the  penalty  of  sin 
from  one  person  to  another.  When  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  is  traced  through  its  successive  phases, 


HOW  CHRIST   SAVES  MEN  187 

as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  devil,  as  the  satisfaction  of 
justice,  as  the  vindication  of  divine  government, 
and  finally  as  the  great  motive  power  which  trans- 
forms character,  it  is  seen  that  there  has  been  a 
progressive  moral  evolution.  The  doctrine  of  re- 
demption through  sacrifice  remains,  but  is  no  longer 
made  to  rest  on  an  unethical  philosophy."  * 

It  is  evident  that  not  much  is  left  of  the  theories 
of  the  Atonement  which  the  church  has  fabricated 
through  the  centuries.  But  the  fact  may  remain 
though  the  theories  pass.  There  have  been  a 
good  many  theories  of  light  since  the  days  of  Par- 
menides  of  Elea,  most  of  which  have  gone  into  the 
junk-pile  of  the  discarded  philosophies  :  but  the 
light  of  heaven  is  just  as  blessed  a  reality  to-day 
as  it  was  when  the  Magians  worshiped  it  upon 
the  Persian  hills,  and  the  poets  praised  its  beauty 
on  the  sunny  plains  of  ancient  Greece.  And  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  while  doctrines  change  their 
forms,  just  as  the  natural  forces  do,  the  essential 
truth  which  they  embody  endures  from  generation 
to  generation.  There  are  many  transformations  of 
spiritual  and  moral  energy,  as  they  appear  in  the 
intellectual  world,  but  there  is  also  a  conservation 
of  energy.  The  people  who  witness  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  mode  often  imagine  that  they  are 
witnessing  an  extinction  of  the  force,  and  go  away 
shouting  that  Christianity  is  dead.  No  man  is  apt 
to  be  more  utterly  oblivious  of  the  great  facts 
of  evolution  than  your  rampant  religious  radical. 
1  Moral  Evolution,  pp.  407, 408. 


188    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

His  notion  is  that  progress  consists  in  an  intermin- 
able series  of  blottings  out  and  fresh  beginnings ; 
the  manner  in  which  one  thing  grows  out  of  an- 
other, in  which  life  and  thought  are  conserved  by 
changes  of  form  and  transmitted  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another  and  from  one  institution  to  another, 
he  is  totally  incapable  of  conceiving.  The  last 
man  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  evolution  ap- 
pears to  be  the  religious  teacher  who  assumes  that 
he  has  a  monopoly  of  liberalism. 

The  forms  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  have 
greatly  changed,  no  doubt ;  but  under  these  forms 
precious  and  immutable  truths  abide.  I  cannot  at 
this  time  enter  into  the  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
ture texts  which  have  been  supposed  to  teach  the 
doctrine  of  expiation ;  but  one  principle  of  inter- 
pretation may  be  suggested  which  will  throw  light 
on  many  of  them.  There  is  a  common  mode  of 
speech  by  which  our  own  feelings  are  attributed  to 
objects  outside  of  ourselves  ;  as  when  we  speak  of  a 
cheerful  room,  meaning  that  there  is  something  in 
the  appearance  of  the  room  which  makes  us  feel 
cheerful;  or  when  we  speak  of  a  dizzy  height, 
meaning  that  we  are  dizzy  when  we  stand  upon  it. 
The  objective  is  thus  often  put  for  the  subjective. 
What  is  in  our  own  feeling,  we  transfer  to  the  object 
which  excites  it.  There  is  the  common  phenomenon 
of  parallax,  also,  by  which  the  heavens  seem  to 
move,  when  it  is  we  who  are  moving.  The  star 
that  was  over  our  right  shoulder  a  little  while  ago 
is  now  over  our  left  shoulder;  it  seems  to  have 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  189 

moved  through  a  large  arc ;  but  the  truth  is  that 
there  has  been  a  turning  in  our  road.  So  men 
naturally  ascribe  to  God  changes  that  have  taken 
place  in  themselves.  They  were  disobedient  and 
had  the  consciousness  of  alienation  from  Him;  they 
are  now  in  filial  relations  with  Him,  and  it  is  natu- 
ral for  them  to  think  that  the  frown  upon  his  face 
has  changed  into  a  smile,  that  wrath  has  turned  to 
love.  But  the  change  is  not  in  Him ;  it  is  in  them- 
selves. They  may  speak  of  his  anger  being  ap- 
peased, because  that  describes  their  own  feeling. 
The  relation  has  changed,  but  the  change  is  in 
them.  And  the  Scriptures  often  take  up  this  natu- 
ral and  popular  way  of  speaking,  and  represent 
God  as  being  angry  and  having  his  anger  turned 
away.  Such  expressions  must  be  taken  for  just 
what  they  are  worth,  as  the  natural  and  familiar 
forms  of  human  speech,  not  as  scientific  statements 
of  the  truth  about  God. 

What  is  it,  then,  that  Jesus  Christ  has  done  for 
us  men  and  our  salvation  ? 

First  he  has  revealed  God  to  us.  Whatever  else 
we  may  say  about  him,  this  must  be  admitted -by 
all  who  have  any  faith  in  his  words,  in  what  he 
said  about  himself,  that  he  was  the  reV*elation  or 
manifestation  of  the  living  God  to  men.  He  said 
of  himself  what  no  other  sane  man  has  ever  said, 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  He  came  to  show  us 
the  Father.  "  He  that  hath  seen  me,"  he  said, 
"  hath  seen  the  Father."  What  he  says  and  does 
and  suffers  represents  to  us  the  divine  thought  and 


190    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

feeling  respecting  our  sins,  our  needs,  and  our  de- 
stinies. 

This  revelation  which  is  made  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ  brings  God  very  near  to  us.  We  see 
this  Son  of  God  entering  into  all  our  human  ex- 
periences, toiling,  hungering,  thirsting,  rejoicing, 
weeping ;  we  hear  him  calling  himself  the  Son  of 
man,  and  it  is  borne  into  our  minds  that  the  chasm 
which  our  thought  had  made  between  divinity  and 
humanity  does  not  exist ;  that  we  are,  indeed,  what 
Jesus  always  calls  us,  the  children  of  our  Father  in 
heaven. 

This  identification  of  himself  with  us  is  such  a 
revelation  of  God's  love  for  us  as  never  could  have 
been  made  in  any  other  way.  For  it  involves  con- 
stant suffering  and  sacrifice,  —  self -sacrifice.  And 
the  only  convincing  manifestation  of  love  is  that 
which  is  revealed  in  self-sacrifice.  "  Surely  he 
hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  sorrows." 
We  cannot  doubt  his  sympathy  with  us,  his  com- 
passion for  us.  Such  a  revelation  of  love  is  fitted 
to  overcome  the  enmity  and  alienation  of  the  human 
heart,  and  to  bring  men  back  to  God  in  contrition 
and  trust. 

But  th*e  sufferings  of  Christ  reveal  something 
more  than  the  love  of  God  for  men,  they  reveal 
also  his  hatred  of  sin.  For  in  order  that  men  may 
be  saved,  it  is  needful  not  only  that  they  be  enabled 
to  understand  God's  love  for  them,  but  also  that 
they  be  taught  to  share  his  wrath  against  the  sin 
which  is  destroying  them.  To  human  beings  in 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  191 

their  present  environment  these  two  experiences 
are  essential  to  salvation,  —  love  of  the  good  and 
hatred  of  the  evil.  I  cannot  save  myself  unless  I 
hate  the  wrong  in  myself  as  cordially  as  I  love  the 
right.  I  cannot  save  my  fellow  man  unless  I  have 
the  same  wrath  against  the  evil  that  is  destroying 
him.  In  order  that  we  may  be  restored  to  commun- 
ion with  a  holy  God  we  must  recoil  from  the  sin 
which  He  abhors  as  cordially  as  we  draw  nigh  to 
the  purity  and  truth  which  He  loves.  Jesus  Christ, 
as  the  manifestation  of  God,  brings  this  truth  home 
to  the  hearts  of  men  with  saving  power.  This  sub- 
ject is  so  vast  that  we  cannot,  within  the  limits  of 
one  short  chapter,  get  anything  more  than  a  glimpse 
of  it.  An  illustration  used  by  Dr.  J.  M.  Whiton 
may  suggest  the  truth  :  — 

"We  see  a  loving  wife,  cleaving  to  her  drunken 
husband  to  save  him  at  all  cost  to  herself.  She 
might  be  comfortable  in  her  father's  house,  but  she 
makes  herself  the  redeeming  partner  of  a  squalid 
life  whose  evil  temper  she  bears,  whose  polluted 
breath  she  breathes,  while  she  feels  in  every  fibre  of 
her  suffering  spirit  the  woe  and  shame.  Through 
this  vicarious  suffering  perhaps  she  accomplishes 
her  redeeming  work,  rouses  the  torpid  conscience 
to  conviction,  repentance,  reparation.  What  is  it 
then  which  educates  and  energizes  his  conscience  ? 
The  evil  consequences  of  his  sin,  not  to  him,  but  to 
her.  It  is  her  vicarious  sacrifice,  not  in  his  stead, 
but  in  his  place,  with  him,  as  well  as  for  him,  that 
gives  his  conscience  the  just  estimate  of  his  sin,  and 


192    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

clothes  it  with  power  to  break  the  accursed  chain. 
Thus  Christ  '  bore  our  sins,'  in  fellowship  with  us, 
not  in  substitution  for  us.  The  vicarious  suffering 
which  we  in  various  ways  bear  with  and  for  one 
another,  he  bore  for  all  sinners  as  their  redeeming 
partner  in  the  retributive  evils  of  their  sin,  to  rouse, 
teach,  energize  conscience  to  an  invincible  hatred 
of  it  and  a  victorious  struggle  with  it.  But  this 
is  not  the  propitiation  of  conscience ;  rather  is  it 
preparatory  thereto. 

"  For  when  we  contemplate  our  sin  with  a  thor- 
oughly awakened  conscience,  what  truly  contrite 
spirit  is  there  who  does  not  feel,  with  the  tender- 
hearted and  penitent  child,  that  he  cannot  be  sorry 
enough  ?  There  is  not  only  the  overt  act  of  sin  to 
be  condemned.  There  is  also  the  evil  root  of  it  in 
the  evil  dispositions  and  habits  which  the  overt  sin 
has  fostered.  There  is  more  sin  within  us  than 
%  shows  at  any  moment.  Our  feelings  seem  too  dull. 
Our  confessions  seem  too  weak.  We  crave  a  power 
of  expression  we  do  not  find  within  us,  to  bind  upon 
our  sin  the  burden  of  condemnation  it  deserves  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Father  we  have  grieved  and 
offended. 

"  Consider  now  the  case  of  him  whom  the  long- 
suffering  constancy  of  conjugal  devotion  has  awak- 
ened from  drunken  dreams,  and  reclaimed  from 
sottish  squalor,  and  rehabilitated  in  sober  man- 
hood. It  is  not  enough  for  him  to  pour  upon  his 
vices  merely  his  own  detestation.  He  longs  to 
condemn  his  sin  with  such  execration  as  only  an 


HOW   CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  193 

unstained  virtue  can  cherish  for  it.  Such  hatred 
of  it  as  only  she  can  feel  whose  purity  has  for  his 
sake  endured  contact  with  its  pollution  he  fain 
would  borrow  from  her  and  share  with  her.  Put- 
ting himself  into  her  place  he  endeavors  to  think 
her  thought,  to  feel  her  feeling  about  it.  Nor  does 
he  feel  that  in  her  view  he  has  made  the  atonement 
of  an  adequate  repentance  until,  in  the  full  accord 
of  their  mutual  love  and  moral  sympathy,  her  abhor- 
rence of  his  sin  has  become  his  own.  Then  at  last 
he  is  satisfied  because  she  is  satisfied.  And  if  he 
should  say,  How  can  I  ever  make  amends?  she 
would  reply,  You  have  made  all  the  amends  I  ever 
sought.  You  are  at  one  with  me.  I  am  satisfied  to 
see  you  abhor  your  sin  as  I  abhor  it.  Thus  is  she 
his  propitiation.  Thus  we  may  approach  the  con- 
ception of  that  propitiation  in  conscience  which  is 
the  atoning  work  of  Christ." 

This  is  only  a  fragment,  an  outline,  I  know,  of 
that  great  work  of  spiritual  revelation,  and  recon- 
ciliation, and  renovation  which  is  wrought  out  for 
us  and  in  us  in  the  life  and  the  sufferings  of  Him 
who  came  to  show  us  the  Father  and  to  save  us 
from  our  sins.  But  it  may  help  us  to  see  that 
there  is  something  more  in  this  work  of  Christ  than 
the  mere  exhibition  of  pity  for  us.  The  abhorrence 
of  the  sin  that  curses  us  is  not  less  clearly  shown. , 
It  was  this  that  broke  his  heart  in  Gethsemane. 
No  being  less  pure  than  Jesus  could  have  felt  as 
he  felt  the  onset  of  the  world's  selfishness  and 
madness,  then  rushing  upon  him  to  destroy  him, 


194    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

simply  because  he  was  unselfish  and  sane.  He 
could  not  but  have  been  overwhelmed  with  abhor- 
rence of  the  terrible  outbreak  of  the  sin  of  the 
world  which  he  was  there  confronting.  Yet  he 
loved  the  men  who  were  seeking  his  life,  and 
longed  to  save  them.  It  was  this  struggle  between 
the  suffering  of  a  pure  spirit  on  account  of  sin  and 
the  love  that  cannot  let  the  sinner  go  which  wrung 
from  him  the  bloody  sweat  of  the  garden.  This 
was  the  true  divine  propitiation,  —  the  reconcil- 
iation through  suffering  of  holiness  with  love. 
And  it  is  by  bringing  us  into  the  same  mind  with 
himself  ;  by  filling  us  with  his  own  abhorrence  of 
sin  ;  by  bringing  us  to  look  upon  the  selfishness 
and  animalism  of  our  own  lives  with  his  eyes,  and 
to  recoil  from  them  as  he  recoiled  from  them,  that 
he  saves  us.  "  The  world's  unrighteousness,"  says 
the  great  German  theologian  Carl  Immanuel  Nitzsch, 
"  spends  itself  upon  the  Holy  and  Righteous  One, 
completes  and  exhausts  itself.  He  endures  it,  in 
the  glory  of  his  innocence,  in  order  by  his  spirit 
to  punish  it  upon  us.  Only  as  the  power  and  possi- 
bility of  an  actual  release  from  sin,  of  our  dying 
with  Him  and  rising  in  a  new  life,  does  he  suffer 
death  in  our  place  and  make  himself  an  offering  to 
God.  Only  thus  is  he  a  ransom  for  many.  It  is 
in  the  depths  of  his  sympathy  and  in  the  endeavor 
for  the  world's  salvation  that  he  bears  the  penalty 
of  its  sin." 1 

Here  are  elements  with  which  we  must  reckon 
1  Quoted  by  Fisher,  Hist.  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  516. 


HOW  CHRIST  SAVES  MEN  195 

in  all  our  dealings  with  the  evil  in  ourselves,  in  all 
our  efforts  to  save  others.  Gethsemane  is  the 
warning  against  an  easy,  good-natured  theory  of 
moral  evil.  We  must  not  go  about  telling  our- 
selves that  we  are  pretty  good  fellows  after  all,  and 
that  God  is  so  infinitely  benevolent  that  He  does 
not  greatly  care  about  our  meannesses  and  iniqui- 
ties. No !  We  must  see  our  sin  as  Christ  sees  it ; 
we  must  hate  it  as  he  hated  it.  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott 
is  right  when  he  says  :  "  We  shall  never  enter  into 
the  mystery  of  redemption  unless  we  enter  in  some 
measure  into  these  two  experiences  of  wrath  and 
pity  and  into  the  mystery  of  their  reconciliation. 
.  .  .  The  Old  Theology  has  grievously  erred  in 
personifying  these  two  experiences,  in  attributing 
all  the  hate  and  wrath  to  the  Father  and  all  the 
pity  and  compassion  to  the  Son.  But  the  New 
Theology  will  still  more  grievously  err  if  it  leaves 
either  the  wrath  or  the  pity  out  of  its  estimate  of 
the  divine  nature,  or  fails  to  see  and  teach  that 
reconciliation  is  the  reconciliation  of  a  great  pity 
with  a  great  wrath,  the  issue  of  which  is  a  great 
inercy  and  a  great  redemption."  1 

1  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  p.  121. 


PREDESTINATION 

PROBABLY  no  other  doctrine  of  theology  has  oc- 
cupied so  large  a  place  in  the  thought  of  the  mod- 
ern church  as  that  which  we  are  now  to  consider. 
What  with  affirming  it  and  denying  it,  modifying 
it  and  explaining  it,  trying  to  believe  it  and  trying 
to  disbelieve  it,  finding  comfort  in  it  and  falling 
into  despair  in  view  of  it,  a  great  many  millions 
of  believers  have  spent  a  large  share  of  their  intel- 
lectual energy.  There  have  always  been  those  who 
believed  it  and  defended  it,  and  there  have  always 
been  those  who  rejected  it  and  assailed  it  as  an 
impediment  to  faith  and  a  libel  on  the  divine  char- 
acter. 

Very  early  in  the  history  of  the  church  the  theo- 
logians began  to  wrestle  with  it ;  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
the  Ephesians,  seemed  to  affirm  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, and  the  Fathers,  in  their  exposition  of 
his  writings,  were  compelled  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion how  far  the  predeterminations  of  the  Creator 
affect  the  characters  and  the  destiny  of  his  crea- 
tures. Most  of  these  earlier  Fathers  reasonably 
took  these  statements  of  Paul  merely  as  strong 


PREDESTINATION  197 

affirmations  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  providence. 
The  Greek  teachers  generally  insist  upon  the  free- 
dom of  the  human  will  as  the  foundation  of  virtue, 
and  make  that  the  foundation  of  theology.  It  is 
the  simple  truth  that  during  the  first  three  centu- 
ries the  notion  that  the  destiny  of  all  men  is  fixed 
before  the  creation  by  a  divine  decree  scarcely 
found  place  in  the  teachings  of  the  church.  Calvin 
himself  acknowledges  this  ;  he  can  only  explain 
it  by  the  assumption  that  the  minds  of  these  early 
Fathers  were  not  properly  illuminated. 

It  was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury that  Augustine,  the  great  Latin  theologian, 
gave  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination  its  dogmatic 
form.  The  doctrine  was  of  course  organically 
connected  with  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  —  the 
doctrine  that  the  whole  human  race  sinned  in 
Adam,  and  are  guilty  and  punishable  with  him, 
having  no  power  to  repent,  and  being  doomed, 
unless  God  shall  intervene,  to  endless  misery. 
Augustine  shrank  from  saying,  what  some  in  later 
years  were  bold  to  say,  that  God  decreed  the  sin  of 
Adam ;  he  only  said  that  God  permitted  it.  But 
the  notion  that  God  had  bound  Adam  and  all  his 
posterity  together  indissolubly,  so  that  the  guilt  of 
the  ancestor  is  inherited  and  shared  by  all  his  de- 
scendants, he  does  teach  in  the  most  unequivocal 
manner.  If  Adam  was  not  predestined  to  sin,  all 
his  posterity  were  predestined  to  be  partakers  of 
the  guilt  of  his  sin,  and  of  the  moral  weakness 
and  inability  to  all  good  which  it  entailed.  Out  of 


198    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

this  mass  of  depravity,  God  determined,  from  all 
eternity,  that  He  would  save  some.  "  Before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  Augustine  says,  "  God 
chose  us  in  Christ,  predestinating  us  to  the  adop- 
tion of  sons;  not  because  He  saw  that  we  would  be 
pure  and  sinless,  but  that  we  might  be.  Moreover, 
He  did  this  according  to  the  pleasure  of  his  will, 
that  no  man  might  glory  in  his  own  will,  but  rather 
in  God's  will."  l  The  number  of  the  elect,  he  says, 
is  fixed  and  certain,  so  that  it  can  neither  be  in- 
creased nor  diminished  by  anything  that  man  can 
do.  These  are  Augustine's  words ;  Hagenbach 
summarizes  his  teaching  thus :  "  God,  in  conse- 
quence of  an  eternal  decree,  and  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  future  conduct  of  man,  has  elected 
some  out  of  the  corrupt  mass  to  become  vessels 
of  his  mercy  (vasa  misericordice) ,  and  left  the 
rest,  as  vessels  of  his  wrath  (vasa  irce),  to  a  just 
condemnation.  Augustine  called  the  former  pre- 
destinatio,  the  latter  reprobatio"  2 

The  doctrine  of  Augustine  was  sharply  attacked 
by  Pelagius,  who  asserted  the  freedom  of  the  will 
and  denied  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity.  But  Pelagius  went  as  far  astray  in  that 
direction  as  Augustine  had  gone  in  the  other  ;  for 
he  practically  denied  the  facts  of  heredity,  and  so 
understated  the  need  of  divine  help  in  overcoming 
sin  as  to  make  man  practically  independent  of  his 
Maker.  With  all  its  exaggerations,  Augustine's 

1  De  Fred.  Sanctorum,  37  (C.  18). 

2  Hist,  of  Doctrine,  §  113. 


PREDESTINATION  199 

theory  came  nearer  to  the  facts  of  human  experi- 
ence than  did  that  of  Pelagius  ;  and  if  either  of 
the  two  theories  must  prevail,  it  was  better  that 
that  of  Augustine  should  have  the  ascendency. 
His  view  it  was,  in  the  main,  which  was  carried 
over  by  the  Western  church.  There  was  much 
dissent,  and  there  were  many  controversies,  but  the 
Augustinian  theology  remained  the  standard  of 
Orthodoxy  until  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 

Luther  was  not  always  logical,  and  he  often 
gives  utterance  to  inconsistent  views.  Indeed,  we 
might  say  of  him,  as  of  many  others,  that  his  in- 
consistencies are  often  the  best  part  of  his  teaching. 
But  he  was,  nevertheless,  a  strenuous  predestina- 
tionist ;  no  one  has  ever  more  vehemently  asserted 
the  absolute  despotism  of  the  divine  will.  "  In  his 
battle  with  Erasmus,"  says  Professor  Fisher,  "  Lu- 
ther affirmed  in  almost  reckless  language  the  im- 
potence of  the  human  will.  God's  agency  was 
asserted  to  be  the  universal  cause.  His  will  was 
declared  to  be  subject  to  no  law,  but  to  be  the 
foundation  of  right.  Predestination  was  declared 
to  be  unconditional,  and  to  include  as  its  objects 
the  lost  as  well  as  the  saved.  *  By  this  thunder- 
bolt,' he  said,  '  free  will  is  laid  low  and  utterly 
crushed.'  " l 

Calvin  is  not  less  positive ;  indeed,  he  is  much 
more  consistently  rigid  in  his  enforcement  of  the 
dogma.  "  According  to  Calvin,"  says  Professor 
Fisher,  "  God  has  determined  by  an  eternal  decree 

1  Hist,  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  292. 


200    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

'  what  He  would  have  to  become  of  every  individ- 
ual of  mankind.'  Eternal  life  is  foreordained  for 
some,  and  eternal  damnation  for  others.  'Every 
one  is  created  for  one  or  the  other  of  these  ends.' 
God  has  once  for  all  determined  '  whom  He  would 
admit  to  salvation  and  whom  He  would  condemn 
to  destruction.'  Prescience  does  not  explain  the 
hardening  of  heart  which  includes  an  intervention 
of  God,  beyond  mere  foreknowledge.  It  takes 
place  first  by  the  withdrawal  of  God's  spirit,  and 
secondly  by  the  employment  of  Satan,  the  minister 
of  his  wrath,  to  influence  their  mind  and  their  ef- 
forts. To  inquire  into  the  reasons  of  the  divine 
will  is  idle  ;  for  '  there  is  nothing  greater  or  higher 
than  the  will  of  God.'  It  '  is  the  cause  of  every- 
thing that  exists.'  " 1  , 

Edwards  also  affirmed  this  doctrine  with  the 
strongest  emphasis.  He  held  that  the  sovereignty 
of  God  is  absolute,  that  every  choice  of  man  is  de- 
creed by  God.  God  is  the  only  cause.  Everything 
that  is  done  is  done  by  Him. 

The  doctrine  of  predestination  known  to  the 
modern  church  receives  its  clearest  expression  in 
the  great  Westminster  Assembly's  Confession  and 
catechisms,  which  are  still  the  standards  of  doctrine 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  same  Confession 
was  adopted  by  assemblies  of  the  Congregation  - 
alists  of  England  and  of  the  United  States;  and 
while  Congregationalism  does  not  admit  any  au- 
thoritative creed  as  binding  on  all  the  churches, 
1  Hist,  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  300. 


PREDESTINATION  201 

this  one  was  recognized,  until  a  recent  date,  by 
most  Congregationalists  as  expressing  the  sub- 
stance of  Christian  doctrine.  One  hundred  years 
ago  it  would  have  been  hard  to  find  a  Congrega- 
tional minister  who  would  have  dissented  from  the 
teaching  of  his  creed  respecting  predestination  ; 
even  in  my  boyhood  there  were  few  who  did  not 
heartily  believe  it. 

This  Confession  begins  by  asserting  that  God 
from  all  eternity,  "  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  coun- 
sel of  his  own  will,  did  freely  and  unchangeably 
ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass ;  yet  so  as  thereby 
neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature,  nor  is  the  liberty 
or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but 
rather  established."  1  If  this  seems  like  a  contra- 
diction in  terms,  we  must  not  too  sharply  censure 
it,  for  doubtless  the  subject  is  one  respecting 
which  it  is  not  easy  to  preserve  logical  consistency. 
The  inconsistencies  of  this  Confession  are  the  best 
part  of  it.  Unfortunately,  when  the  theologians 
went  on  to  define  exactly  what  this  doctrine  means 
they  used  language  which  makes  all  these  asser- 
tions of  freedom  utterly  meaningless  and  even  pre- 
posterous. For  example :  — 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated 
unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death. 

"  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and 

1  Chap.  iii. 


202    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably 
designed ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  defi- 
nite that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  dimin- 
ished." i 

The  next  article  strenuously  denies  that  this 
election  was  based  on  any  foresight  of  good  in  those 
thus  chosen ;  it  was  a  perfectly  arbitrary  decree. 

Such  is,  for  substance,  the  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation as  it  has  been  held  and  taught  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  for  fifteen  centuries.  Two  or  three 
implications  of  the  doctrine  deserve  our  considera- 
tion. 

The  first  is  the  fate  of  the  non-elect  infants.  For 
predestinism,  in  the  days  of  its  vigor,  never  stam- 
mered in  its  assertion  of  the  fact  that  among  those 
passed  by  and  left  to  perish  were  multitudes  of  in- 
fants. This  is  logically  involved  in  the  doctrine. 
The  belief  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
saved  can  no  more  be  reconciled  with  this  doctrine 
of  unconditional  predestination  than  light  can  be 
reconciled  with  darkness.  It  is  true  that  those  who 
now  profess  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  election  do 
almost  all  believe  that  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
saved ;  but  they  trample  all  their  logic  under  foot 
when  they  thus  make  room  for  the  children.  And 
this  relenting  of  the  old  theology  is  but  recent.  I 
have  heard  Presbyterian  ministers  and  Congrega- 
tional ministers  deny  that  anybody  ever  believed  in 
the  damnation  of  any  infants  ;  but  one  must  blush 
for  the  ignorance  of  the  theologian  who  makes  such 
1  Chap.  iii. 


PREDESTINATION  203 

a  statement.  How  obstinately  he  must  have  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  facts  that  blaze  upon  the  pages  of 
the  history  of  doctrine !  Augustine  clearly  taught 
that  some  infants  were  sent  to  perdition ;  he  lays  it 
down  as  a  postulate  in  one  of  his  arguments ;  it 
does  not  need  to  be  proved,  it  can  be  assumed  as 
undoubted.  Calvin  taught  it  in  the  most  unmis- 
takable terms,  over  and  over.  "I  ask  again,"  he 
says,  "  how  it  is  that  the  fall  of  Adam  involves  so 
many  nations  with  their  infant  children  in  eternal 
death  without  remedy,  unless  that  so  it  seemed 
meet  to  God."  All  the  heathen,  and  all  their  in- 
fant children,  were  consigned  by  the  decrees  of  God 
to  perdition.  This  was  one  of  the  foundation  stones 
of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine. 

Not  long  after  Calvin's  day  there  was  a  revolt  in 
the  Low  Countries  against  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
led  by  Jacob  Arminius  ;  the  Remonstrants,  as  they 
were  called,  were  the  founders  of  that  theological 
school  which  has  been  most  vigorously  represented 
by  Wesley  and  the  Methodists.  It  was  they  who 
began  to  deny  this  doctrine  of  unconditional  pre- 
destination, and  along  with  it  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fant damnation.  To  check  this  revolt,  the  Synod 
of  Dort  was  called  in  1618  ;  and  the  predestination- 
ists  of  all  the  European  countries  came  together  to 
agree  upon  a  manifesto  by  which  their  doctrine 
should  be  cleared  and  confirmed.  Much  was  said 
in  that  synod  about  the  infants ;  and  while  it  was 
agreed  that  many  infants  are  saved,  either  by  the 
divine  decree,  or  by  their  covenant  relation  with 


204    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

godly  parents,  I  cannot  find  that  any  theologian 
of  that  synod  expressed  his  belief  in  the  salvation 
of  all  infants. 

Zwingli,  the  great  Swiss  reformer,  had  before 
this  day  avowed  that  faith ;  but  Zwingli  was  some- 
thing of  a  heretic  ;  his  hopes  for  the  little  children 
were  not  shared  by  many  of  his  brethren. 

The  Westminster  Assembly's  Confession  deals 
with  the  subject  in  a  manner  inferential,  but  un- 
mistakable. "Elect  infants,"  it  affirms,  "dying  in 
infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit."  The  implication  is  that  there  are 
non-elect  infants  who  die  in  infancy  and  who  are 
not  saved.  Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  ex- 
plain away  this  language,  but  no  man  who  does  not 
wish  to  proclaim  his  ignorance  should  engage  in 
such  an  enterprise.  If  you  want  to  know  what 
those  divines  thought  about  this  subject  read  their 
writings.  They  have  put  themselves  on  record  in 
many  treatises  and  sermons,  in  which  they  unfalter- 
ingly deny  that  all  infants  will  be  saved.  Indeed, 
it  was  a  cardinal  point  of  doctrine  with  every  one 
of  them  that  all  the  infants  of  the  heathen  dying 
in  infancy  went  to  eternal  perdition.  William 
Twisse,  the  prolocutor  or  president  of  the  Assem- 
bly, says :  "  Many  thousands,  even  all  the  infants 
of  Turkes  and  Sarazens  dying  in  original  sin  are 
tormented  in  hell  fire."  Many  others  of  the  lead- 
ers of  the  Assembly,  even  of  the  committee  which 
reported  this  article,  are  equally  explicit.  Profes- 
sor Briggs  says:  "We  are  able  to  say  that  the 


PREDESTINATION  205 

Westminster  divines  were  unanimous  on  this  ques- 
tion of  the  salvation  of  elect  infants  only.  We 
have  examined  the  greater  part  of  the  writings  of 
the  Westminster  divines,  and  have  not  been  able 
to  find  any  different  opinion  from  the  extracts  we 
have  given.  The  Presbyterian  churches  have  de- 
parted from  their  standards  on  this  question,  and  it 
is  simple  honesty  to  acknowledge  it.  We  are  at 
liberty  to  amend  the  Confession,  but  we  have  no 
right  to  distort  it  and  to  pervert  its  grammatical 
and  historical  meaning."  1 

It  is  rather  curious,  I  think,  that  any  one  who 
professes  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
predestination  as  applied  to  adults  should  hesitate 
to  believe  in  the  damnation  of  infants.  For  it  is 
the  very  substance  of  the  doctrine  that  every  adult 
individual  of  the  non-elect  was  a  damned  infant 
the  moment  he  drew  his  first  breath.  He  came 
into  the  world  with  this  curse  upon  him.  He  was 
one  of  that  fixed  number  of  the  reprobate  which 
can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  by  any- 
thing that  men  or  angels  can  do.  It  was  never  for 
one  moment  possible  for  him  to  escape  from  the 
doom  which  had  been  determined  for  him  from  all 
eternity.  The  most  merciful  thing  that  could  pos- 
sibly happen  to  him,  therefore,  would  be  to  send 
him  straight  to  hell  from  his  mother's  arms.  For 
it  is  by  all  these  theologians  admitted  that  the  sin- 
ner waxes  worse  the  older  he  grows,  and  that  the 
more  he  sins  the  heavier  will  be  his  penalty.  If 
1  Whither?  p.  134. 


206    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

this  infant  lives  to  maturity  or  old  age,  he  will 
only  heap  up  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath  ;  the 
sooner  he  is  removed  from  the  earth  the  lighter  will 
be  the  weight  of  his  everlasting  torment.  The 
non-elect  who  are  sent  to  hell  in  their  infancy  are 
the  most  mercifully  treated  of  all  the  non-elect. 

The  certain  perdition  of  all  the  heathen  is  also, 
as  several  of  these  citations  have  shown,  a  distinct 
corollary  of  this  doctrine  of  predestination  as  it 
has  been  preached  and  believed  in  past  centuries. 
The  Westminster  Confession  most  emphatically 
denies  that  "  men  not  professing  the  Christian  reli- 
gion can  be  saved  in  any  other  way  whatsoever,  be 
they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  accord- 
ing to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  reli- 
gion they  do  profess ; "  and  it  passionately  declares 
that  "  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very 
pernicious  and  to  be  detested." 

Let  us  see,  now,  if  we  can  fairly  and  calmly 
state  this  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  and 
reprobation,  which  has  been  taught  by  so  many 
of  the  great  theologians  ;  which  has  been  believed 
by  hundreds  of  millions  of  devout  men,  by  some  of 
the  greatest  and  best  men  that  have  lived  in  the 
world,  and  which  stands  to-day  uncontradicted  and 
unqualified  in  the  creeds  of  some  of  the  great  reli- 
gious denominations. 

1.  In  the  counsels  of  eternity  God  determined 
to  create  man  and  subject  him  to  temptation  under 
which  it  was  probable  that  he  would  fall.  Some 
of  the  theologians  say  that  God  decreed  the  sin  ; 


PREDESTINATION  207 

others  shrink  from  this  and  declare  that  the  decree 
is  concerned  with  what  followed  the  fall,  not  with 
what  preceded  it. 

2.  It  is   certain,  however,  that  such  a  relation 
was  established  between  our  first  parent  and  his 
offspring  that  if  he  should  fall,  the  moral  taint  of 
his  sin  and  the  guilt  of  it  would  be  transmitted 
to  all  his   progeny;    so   that   every  one    of   them 
would  come  into  life  "  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  to  all  good  and  wholly  inclined 
to  all  evil,"    —  so  that  from  the  hour  of  his  birth 
every  human  being  would  be  helpless  to  save  him- 
self, and  would  be  "  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of 
God  and  curse  of  the  law  and  so  made  subject  to 
death,   with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal,   and 
eternal." 

3.  From  eternity,  before  the  worlds  were  created, 
God  determined  that  he  would  select  from  this 
weltering  mass  of  moral  inability  and  misery  a  cer- 
tain fixed  and   definite  number  whom  he   would 
save.     To  this  number,  from  the  moment  when  the 
decree  was  formed,  not  one  name  could  be  added, 
and  from   it  not  one  could   be  subtracted.     The 
exact  population  of  heaven  and  of  hell  was  fixed 
long  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

4.  Those  thus  chosen  were  selected  by  a  purely 
arbitrary   choice,   a   choice   which   had  absolutely 
nothing   to    do    with    their    prospective   merit   or 
demerit. 

5.  Those  not  thus  chosen  were,  from  all  eternity, 
foredoomed  to  eternal  misery.     "  The  rest  of  man- 


208    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OP  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

kind,"  says  the  Confession,  "  God  was  pleased,  ac- 
cording to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
whereby  He  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  He 
pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over 
his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to 
dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of 
his  glorious  justice." 

6.  Just  what  proportion  of  the  race  is  elected 
and  saved,  and  what  proportion  is  reprobated  and 
consigned  to  eternal  torment,  we  do  not  know  ;  but 
the  great  Confession  tells  us  plainly  that  all  the 
heathen  and  all  their  offspring  are  lost,  and  these, 
up  to  the  present  day,  constitute  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  race.  If  what  the  Larger  Catechism 
tells  us  is  true,  that  "  they  who,  having  never  heard 
the  gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ  and  believe  not 
in  him  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature 
or  the  law  of  that  religion  they  profess,"  there 
must  be  hundreds  of  billions  of  souls  in  hell  to- 
day. And  the  population  of  that  place  must  be 
growing,  pretty  rapidly.  Something  like  fifteen 
hundred  millions  of  human  beings  are  living  on 
this  planet ;  of  these  perhaps  fifty  millions  die 
every  year;  not  one  fourth  of  them  have  heard 
the  gospel  or  know  of  Jesus  Christ ;  from  thirty 
to  forty  millions  every  year  must,  if  this  doctrine 
is  true,  go  down  to  that  pit.  What  a  population 
must  swarm  to-day  in  that  vast  land  of  eternal 
night !  For  history,  as  we  are  forced  to  read  it 
to-day,  carries  back  the  period  during  which  our 


PREDESTINATION  209 

race  has  inhabited  the  planet  far  beyond  the  six 
thousand  years  of  the  old  conjectural  chronology  ; 
one  hundred  thousand  years,  some  of  the  thinkers 
say,  is  a  more  probable  term.  "  The  countless 
silent  centuries  that  lie  behind  recorded  history," 
says  Dr.  Gordon,  "  are  to-day  one  of  the  most 
touching,  fascinating,  and  bewildering  objects  of 
thought.  They  have  at  last  risen  from  their  long 
sleep,  they  have  finally  found  recognition." 1  Of 
course  all  these,  if  we  are  to  accept  the  implicit 
and  unqualified  statements  of  these  old  confessions, 
have  been  consigned  to  hopeless  and  endless  mis- 
ery. Well  may  we  cry  with  Whittier :  — 

"  O  the  generations  old 

,  Over  whom  no  church-bells  tolled ; 

Christless,  lifting  up  blind  eyes 
To  the  silence  of  the  skies ! 
For  the  innumerable  dead 
Is  my  soul  disquieted. 

"  Where  be  now  those  silent  hosts  ? 
Where  the  camping  ground  of  ghosts  ? 
Where  the  spectral  conscripts  led 
To  the  white  tents  of  the  dead  ? 
What  strange  shore  or  chartless  sea, 
Holds  the  awful  mystery  ?  " 

Finally,  we  are  told  that  all  this  is  done  by  the 
Creator,  to  illustrate  his  "  glorious  justice  "  which 
men  are  bound  to  praise.  These  uncounted  bil- 
lions of  the  non-elect  now  in  eternal  torment  were 
brought  into  being  by  Him;  they  had  no  option 
about  being  born  ;  it  was  his  creative  fiat  that  gave 
1  The  Christ  of  To-Day,  p.  13. 


210    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

them  life.  They  came  into  being  under  a  constitu- 
tion which  He  had  foreordained,  and  by  means  of 
which  every  one  of  them  from  the  moment  of  his 
birth  was  foredoomed  to  a  life  of  sin  in  this  world 
and  an  eternity  of  misery.  It  was  not  for  any- 
thing that  they  had  done  that  they  were  born  sin- 
ners, and  found  themselves  in  helpless  bondage  to 
a  bad  heredity ;  it  was  not  for  anything  that  they 
had  done  or  failed  to  do  that  they  were  passed  by 
and  left  to  perish  in  that  misery ;  but  it  is  all  done 
to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice  ! 

And  this  is  the  Being  who  by  many  devout  men 
has  been  called  God,  and  worshiped  ! 

Is  this  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  and  re- 
probation believed  to-day  ?  I  do  not  think  that  it 
is  believed  by  fairly  educated  Christian  men  of 
any  denomination.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find 
any  Protestant  who  would  confess  his  belief  that 
any  infant,  whether  of  heathen  or  Christian  parent- 
age, is  sent  to  endless  punishment  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin  ;  and  the  men  are  growing  scarce  who 
will  admit  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  that  no  hea- 
then who  has  not  heard  of  Christ  can  possibly  be 
saved.  The  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy is  almost  universally  believed  by  Protestant 
Christians.  But  that  admission  pulverizes  the  pre- 
destinarian  logic.  For  if  the  unconditional  damna- 
tion of  non-elect  infants  is  unjust,  the  uncondi- 
tional damnation  of  non-elect  adults  is,  as  I  have 
already  shown,  ten  times  more  unjust.  And  there- 
fore this  system  of  thought  has  not  and  cannot 


PREDESTINATION  211 

have  any  real  hold  upon  the  thought  of  the  race. 
The  moral  sense  of  mankind  is  in  rebellion  against 
it.  The  churches  which  retain  it  in  their  confes- 
sions have  simply  moved  away  from  it.  The  kind 
of  Calvinism  which  is  held  and  taught  by  most 
Presbyterian  ministers  to-day  is  no  more  the  Cal- 
vinism of  Calvin  than  the  astronomy  which  is 
taught  in  our  colleges  to-day  is  the  astronomy  of 
Ptolemy.  It  is  based  on  the  righteousness  or  the 
love  of  God  and  not  upon  his  sovereignty.  The 
central  idea  of  Angustinianism  and  Calvinism  as 
philosophies  of  the  universe  is  force.  The  central 
idea  of  all  the  theology  that  is  taught  to-day  is 
righteousness.  The  fundamental  explanation  of 
everything  under  this  predestinarian  conception 
was  God's  will.  The  fundamental  explanation 
now  is  God's  character.  The  old  theology  was  un- 
moral. The  new  theology  —  and  by  the  new  the- 
ology I  mean  that  which  is  preached  not  only  in 
Congregational  pulpits,  but  in  Presbyterian  pulpits 
and  Baptist  pulpits,  —  in  all  the  pulpits  from  which 
Calvinism  was  once  preached  —  is  substantially  a 
moral  theology. 

Let  me  give  you  a  few  sentences  from  a  recent 
book  of  Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke  of  New  York.  Dr. 
Van  Dyke  is  the  son  of  a  man  who  was  a  leader  of 
the  Old  School  wing  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  he 
is  himself  a  graduate  of  Princeton  and  a  Doctor  of 
Divinity  by  decoration  of  that  ancient  stronghold 
of  orthodoxy  ;  he  was  lately  the  pastor  of  one  of 
the  most  conservative  Old  School  Presbyterian 


212    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

churches  in  New  York  city.  Listen  to  him  and 
see  whether  he  believes  in  the  Calvinism  of  Calvin : 

"  The  Bible  never  says  that  faith  is  a  gift. 
There  is  a  voluntary  element  in  it.  It  is  some- 
thing to  be  done  by  the  exercise  of  an  inward 
power.  It  is  a  coming  of  the  soul  to  Christ ;  it  is 
a  following  of  the  soul  after  him  ;  it  is  the  first 
step  in  a  long  course  of  spiritual  activity.  .  .  . 
Now  there  is  not  a  hint  in  all  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
that  this  first  act  of  freedom  is  impossible  for 
any  soul  to  whom  he  speaks.  He  has  no  idea  of 
an  eternal  predestination  binding  some  to  belief 
and  others  to  unbelief,  a  secret  decree  including 
certain  men  in  the  kingdom  and  excluding  others 
from  it." 

"  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  single  passage 
in  the  Old  Testament  which  contradicts  Christ's 
doctrine  of  the  real  liberty  of  the  soul.  But  if 
there  were  such  a  passage  I  would  leave  it  forever 
alone  as  belonging  to  that  knowledge  which  was  in 
part,  and  which  was  done  away  when  that  which 
was  perfect  had  come." 

"  If  there  is  any  validity  whatever  in  our  moral 
instincts,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  say  that  from 
our  present  point  of  view,  which  is  for  us  the  only 
one  attainable,  this  theory  of  the  absolute  and  un- 
conditional sovereignty  of  God  exercised  by  one 
law  of  necessity  over  all  creatures  is  so  far  from 
being  for  God's  glory  that  it  is  apparently  for  his 
shame  and  dishonor.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  has 
been,  and  still  is,  the  most  fertile  mother  of  doubts. 


PREDESTINATION  213 

.  .  .  The  idea  of  an  irresponsible  God  ruling  by 
an  eternal  and  inflexible  fiat  over  responsible  men 
is  a  moral  nightmare,  under  which  humanity 
groans,  and  from  which  it  struggles  to  awake,  even 
though  it  should  have  to  open  its  eyes  upon  the 
blank  darkness  of  an  unsearchable  night.  Be- 
tween the  unknowable  God  of  agnosticism  and  the 
unlovable  God  of  absolutism  there  is  indeed  little 
to  choose.  But  the  choice,  such  as  it  is,  lies  on  the 
side  of  agnosticism.  It  is  unspeakably  better  to 
doubt  God's  personality,  his  supremacy,  his  very 
being,  than  it  is  to  doubt  his  eternal  goodness  and 
his  moral  integrity."  l 

That  is  the  kind  of  doctrine  which  is  heard  to- 
day in  the  strong,  leading  Presbyterian  pulpits  of 
this  country,  —  and  even  stronger  and  braver  teach- 
ing than  this  is  heard  in  most  of  the  Presbyterian 
pulpits  of  Scotland.  How  much  is  left  in  it  of  the 
old  doctrine  of  unconditional  predestination  I  will 
let  you  tell. 

The  whole  grim,  ghastly,  appalling  fabrication  is 
built  upon  a  deification  of  will.  The  central  ele- 
ment of  personality,  men  said,  is  the  will.  God's 
will  must,  then,  be  the  foundation  of  theology. 
Take  the  principle  of  will,  make  it  omnipotent  and 
absolute,  subordinate  to  it  every  other  element  of 
character,  then  deduce  your  theology  from  that 
principle,  and  you  will  have  the  Augustinian  Cal- 
vinism. 

The   craving   for   a   simplification    of   religious 

1  The  Gospel  for  an  Age  of  Doubt,  p.  263. 


214    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

theory  —  the  search  for  a  single  principle  by  which 
everything  can  be  explained  —  contributed  to  the 
supremacy  of  this  doctrine.  It  does  wonderfully 
simplify  the  confusions  of  life  to  make  a  single 
force,  like  the  will  of  God,  account  for  everything. 
But  simplicity  is  sometimes  sought  at  too  great  a 
cost ;  we  attain  unto  it  by  ignoring  about  half  the 
phenomena  with  which  we  have  to  deal. 

Indeed,  I  think  that  the  last  word  of  philosophy 
threatens  to  put  this  determinism  out  of  coui't. 
For  it  is  the  scientific  people  who  have  lately  been 
preaching  predestination  most  diligently.  There 
is  a  stiff  sort  of  materialistic  philosophy  which  is 
just  as  fatalistic  as  Augustine  or  Calvin  ever  was. 
"  It  professes,"  says  William  James,  "  that  those 
parts  of  the  universe  already  laid  down  absolutely 
appoint  and  decree  what  the  other  parts  shall  be. 
The  future  has  no  ambiguous  possibilities  hid  in 
its  womb  ;  the  part  we  call  the  present  is  compati- 
ble with  only  one  totality.  Any  other  future  com- 
plement than  the  one  fixed  from  eternity  is  impos- 
sible. The  whole  is  in  each  and  every  part,  and 
welds  it  with  the  rest  into  an  absolute  unity,  an 
iron  block,  in  which  there  can  be  no  equivocation 
or  shadow  of  turning. 

" '  With  earth's  first  clay,  they  did  the  last  man  knead, 
And  there  of  the  last  harvest  sowed  the  seed, 
And  the  first  morning  of  creation  wrote 
What  the  last  dawn  of  reckoning  shall  read.'  " 1 

To  the  philosophic  reply  to  this  fatalism  I  can  give 
1  The  Will  to  Believe,  p.  150. 


PREDESTINATION  215 

no  space  in  this  chapter ;  let  it  suffice  to  say  that 
the  answer  given  by  Professor  James  in  the  volume 
just  quoted  seems  to  me  adequate. 

With  most  of  us  the  testimony  of  consciousness 
is  probably  sufficient.  None  of  us  can  have  any 
clearer  evidence  than  that  of  our  own  conscious- 
ness, and  there  is  none  of  us  who  is  not  every 
hour  conscious  of  freedom,  —  absolutely  sure  that 
he  has  the  power  to  do  many  things  which  he 
leaves  undone,  and  to  leave  undone  that  which 
he  is  doing.  The  world  is  full  of  possibilities 
with  which  our  choices  connect  themselves ;  we 
know  that  many  paths  open  before  us  every  day, 
and  that  there  is  vast  difference  between  what  we 
are  and  what  we  might  have  been.  The  modern 
scientific  determinism,  like  the  old  religious  pre- 
destinism.  is  the  creation  of  a  stark  logic  which 
ignores  fully  half  of  the  facts  of  life.  The  most 
distinguished  of  living  English  scientists  recently 
spoke  of  "  the  demonstrated  daily  miracle  of  our 
human  free  will,"  as  one  of  the  undoubted  facts 
which  science  could  not  explain  but  must  assume. 

It  must,  however,  be  said  that  this  grim  doctrine 
has  done  some  good  work  in  the  world.  There  was 
never  a  hurricane  or  a  flood  which  did  not  bring 
some  blessings  to  mankind.  Systems,  like  men, 
have  what  the  French  call  the  defects  of  their 
qualities  :  the  best  systems  have  their  injurious 
influences,  and  the  worst  ones  have  beneficent  in- 
fluences. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Calvinism  has  strength- 


216    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

ened  the  defenses  of  civil  liberty.  It  has  always 
been  the  enemy  of  absolutism  in  the  state.  It 
always  stands  up  for  the  individual  against  hierar- 
chies and  tyrannies.  "  This  man  is  in  the  hands 
of  God,"  it  says ;  "  let  him  alone !  Who  art 
thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To  his 
own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth."  In  fact,  Cal- 
vinism made  God  such  a  tremendous  tyrant  that  it 
was  simply  compelled  to  deny  and  resist  all  earthly 
tyrannies.  And  this  has  been,  historically,  a  mat- 
ter of  immense  consequence  to  the  civilization  of 
Europe  and  America. 

Doubtless,  also,  in  the  development  of  the  in- 
dividual character,  it  has  often  wrought  out  the 
beautiful  results  of  humility  and  trust  in  the  divine 
power.  This  could  not  have  been  gained  without 
emphasizing  other  attributes  of  God  than  that 
which  Calvinism  makes  central ;  but  the  sense  of 
dependence  on  God  which  it  cultivates  is  a  source 
of  strength  to  all  who  fully  experience  it. 

Take  the  case  of  Augustine.  His  theology  really 
sprung  from  his  experience.  When  his  logic  got 
to  work  upon  it,  it  made  a  horrible  idol  out  of  it ; 
but  in  its  origin  it  was  human  and  reasonable.  It 
was  his  deep  experience  of  his  own  weakness  and 
sinfulness  and  need  that  led  him  to  exalt  the  di- 
vine efficiency.  His  philosophy  is  only  a  logical 
overstatement,  which  amounts  to  a  caricature,  of 
a  profound  fact.  But  the  fact  is  there  —  the  human 
need,  the  divine  bounty.  Grace  is  not  what  Au- 
gustine figured  it, —  a  vast,  all-compelling  energy, 


PREDESTINATION  217 

which  overbears  and  submerges  and  sweeps  away 
the  human  personality  in  its  resistless  onset ;  it  is 
rather  the  helper  of  our  infirmities,  the  prompter 
of  our  better  thoughts,  the  quickening  influence 
that  reinforces  all  that  is  best  in  us  and  makes  us 
strong  to  achieve  and  overcome.  We  are  saved  by 
grace,  and  grace  is  help.  The  greatest  fact  in  the 
creation  of  God  is  a  fact  of  which  this  old  philoso- 
phy never  gained  any  adequate  conception,  —  it  is 
the  creation  of  a  free  human  personality.  By  the 
side  of  that,  all  the  wonders  of  astronomy  and  phy- 
sics sink  into  insignificance.  Explain  it  we  cannot, 
but  here  is  the  fact.  The  one  wonderful  thing,  as 
Tennyson  says,  is,  — 

"  Not  matter,  nor  the  finite-infinite, 
But  this  main  miracle  that  thou  art  thou, 
With  power  on  thine  own  act  and  on  the  world." 

Having  endowed  man  with  freedom,  God  respects 
the  work  of  his  hands  —  let  me  rather  say  the  off- 
spring of  his  love  ;  and  force  is  forever  laid  aside 
in  appeals  to  this  personality.  The  claims  of  rea- 
son, the  impulses  of  affection,  the  dictates  of  right- 
eousness, are  the  only  powers  that  can  rightly  con- 
trol his  action.  He  is  made  for  virtue,  and  there 
is  no  virtue  where  there  is  constraint.  The  kind 
of  compulsion  which  the  irresistible  grace  of  the 
old  theology  assumed  is  a  moral  absurdity.  Grace 
is  help  ;  and  every  human  soul  needs  help,  and 
must  have  it ;  there  is  no  salvation  without  it. 
That  is  the  real  truth  for  which  the  Old  Calvinism 
stood,  the  truth  which  it  distorted,  by  its  exaggera- 


218     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

tions,  until  it  made  of  God  not  an  almighty  Helper, 
but  an  almighty  Tyrant.  God's  sovereignty  is  not 
the  sovereignty  of  force,  of  will ;  it  is  the  sover- 
eignty of  reason,  of  affection.  "  His  sovereignty," 
says  Dr.  Van  Dyke,  "  embraces  human  liberty  as 
the  ocean  surrounds  an  island.  His  sovereignty 
upholds  human  liberty  as  the  air  upholds  a  flying 
bird.  His  sovereignty  defends  human  liberty  as 
the  authority  of  a  true  king  defends  the  liberty  of 
his  subjects,  —  nay,  rather  as  the  authority  of  a 
father  tenderly  and  patiently  respects  and  protects 
the  spiritual  freedom  of  his  children,  in  order  that 
they  may  learn  to  love  and  obey  him  gladly  and  of 
their  own  accord.  For  this  is  the  end  of  God's 
sovereignty :  that  his  kingdom  may  come ;  that 
his  will  may  be  done  on  earth,  —  not  as  it  is  done 
in  the  circling  of  the  stars  or  in  the  blossoming  of 
flowers,  but  as  it  is  done  in  heaven,  where  created 
spirits  freely  strike  the  notes  that  blend  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  music  of  the  divine  spirit." 1 
1  The  Gospel  for  an  Age  of  Doubt,  p.  271. 


XI 

CONVERSION 

THE  fact  of  degeneration  is  not  disputed.  That 
a  man  may  change  from  good  to  bad  and  from  bad 
to  worse  is  universally  admitted,  and  volumes  are 
filled  with  scientific  reports  upon  this  process  of 
deterioration.  To  most  persons  this  is  all  that 
heredity  means ;  it  connotes  the  transmission  of 
evil  traits  and  tendencies  and  their  downward  pull 
upon  the  lives  by  which  they  are  inherited.  That 
easy  grade  to  Avernus  has  been  well  surveyed ;  we 
know  every  furlong  of  it.  The  popular  theology, 
with  its  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  has  accustomed 
us,  in  our  study  of  man,  to  look  for  evil  and  only 
evil,  and  that  continually  ;  we  expect  to  see  him 
sinking  deeper  and  deeper  into  vice  and  moral 
helplessness.  And  science,  in  its  study  of  morbid 
conditions,  has  put  a  great  deal  of  emphasis  on  the 
same  tendencies.  "  Degeneration,"  says  Professor 
Harris,  "  is  a  stock  word  of  evolution.  There  is, 
then,  no  occasion  for  surprise,  if  reversion  and 
degeneration  appear  in  the  development  of  the 
human  species.  Their  absence  would  be  surpris- 
ing. There  is  human  as  well  as  plant  and  animal 
degeneracy.  Max  Nordau  borrowed  the  title  of 


220    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

his  book  from  evolution.  As  plants  and  animals 
have  diseases  which  are  abnormal,  and  which  im- 
pair or  destroy  the  normal  type,  so  there  is  moral 
disease  which  invades  and  corrupts  the  ideal  char- 
acter. Whether  avoidable  or  not  is  a  question 
that  pertains  to  personality.  Whether  actual  or 
not  is  a  question  which  does  not  even  arise."  1 

What  is  the  nature  of  this  moral  degeneration 
which  all  of  us  have  witnessed,  which  some  of  us, 
no  doubt,  have  experienced  ?  Is  it  an  unconscious 
change  ?  Is  the  man  wholly  passive  in  the  pro- 
cess ?  If  you  expose  the  human  body  to  a  malari- 
ous climate,  it  becomes  gradually  tainted  by  this 
malarious  influence ;  its  organs  are  impaired,  its 
vigor  is  reduced,  its  functions  are  diseased.  But, 
in  all  this,  the  body  is  unconscious  and  passive  ;  it 
suffers  this  injury  without  contributing  to  it ;  the 
influence  is  insidious,  but  it  is  an  external  influ- 
ence ;  the  physical  degeneration  is  wrought  upon 
the  body  by  a  force  acting  from  without.  Is  it 
the  same  with  the  character  ?  Can  that  be  changed 
for  the  worse  unconsciously  and  without  a  strug- 
gle? I  do  not  think  so.  I  am  aware  that  bad 
moral  influences  are  very  insidious,  about  as  subtle 
as  the  malaria  itself,  and  that  a  man  who  is  sur- 
rounded with  selfishness  and  impurity  and  mean- 
ness is  often  very  insensibly  led  along  the  down- 
ward way  by  the  pressure  of  the  environing  evil ; 
and  yet  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  quite  possible  for 
any  man  to  deteriorate  without  knowing  it,  without 
1  Moral  Evolution,  p.  274. 


CONVERSION  221 

having  a  hand  in  it.  For  every  human  being  has 
some  sort  of  ideal.  That  makes  him  a  man.  He 
is  not  merely  a  thing,  pushed  along  in  his  devel- 
opment by  forces  acting  upon  him ;  he  is  a  per- 
son ;  he  is  a  power ;  and  always  there  is  lifted  up 
before  him  some  conception  of  the  man  he  ought 
to  be.  There  is  no  sane  human  being  who  does 
not  see  such  a  vision  beckoning  him,  and  who  does 
not  feel  that  he  ought  to  follow  it.  The  concep- 
tion of  what  manhood  means  may  be  very  crude 
and  defective,  but  it  is  there  in  his  mind,  and  it 
lays  its  authority  upon  him.  He  cannot  help  judg- 
ing himself,  all  the  while,  by  this  standard.  When- 
ever he  takes  a  bad  step  downward  he  knows  that 
he  is  departing  from  his  ideal ;  he  knows  that  he 
is  unfaithful  to  the  light  which  he  has ;  he  knows 
that  that  which  is  lower  is  getting  the  mastery  in 
him  over  that  which  is  higher.  His  Dr.  Jekyll  is 
losing  and  his  Mr.  Hyde  is  gaining  control.  With 
Paul  he  says,  "  The  good  which  I  would  that  I  do 
not,  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not  that  I  practice." 
With  the  old  Romans  he  cries,  "Video  meliora 
proboque,  deteriora  sequor."  All  literature,  all  lan- 
guage, is  full  of  the  records  of  this  struggle  of  the 
sinking  soul  which  is  worsted  by  the  bad  environ- 
ment and  the  bad  inheritance  and  driven  further 
and  further  away  from  its  own  ideal.  The  point 
to  be  noted  is  that  it  is  more  or  less  of  a  struggle ; 
that  there  is  always  some  sense  of  defeat,  and  of 
blame  and  shame  on  account  of  it.  The  man  does 
not  blame  himself  for  the  evil  influences  thai^sur- 


222    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

round  him,  and  he  need  not  blame  himself  for  any 
bad  heredity,  but  he  does  blame  himself  for  not  hav- 
ing more  sturdily  resisted  these  malign  influences. 
It  is  not  wholly  a  matter  of  pressure  upon  him,  and 
he  knows  it.  His  own  choices  or  failures  to 
choose  ;  his  own  surrenders  to  the  evil  when  he 
might  have  fought,  and  if  worst  were,  died  fighting 
—  these  are  elements  in  the  process  which  he  can- 
not hide  from  himself.  He  has  contributed  to  his 
own  downfall.  He  has  been  unfaithful  to  his  own 
ideals.  Doubtless  the  ideals  have  been  dimmed 
and  lowered  by  this  very  infidelity,  so  that  they  do 
not  command  him  now  as  once  they  did,  but  there 
is  still  and  always  a  disparity  between  what  he 
knows  he  ought  to  be  and  what  he  is.  All  this  is 
involved  in  every  instance  of  the  deterioration  of 
character.  It  is  something  more  than  a  biological 
or  organic  degeneration.  It  is  a  spiritual  degen- 
eration. There  is  something  behind  all  these  in- 
stincts and  impulses  and  appetites  and  tendencies 
which  judges  them  all  by  a  standard  of  its  own  and 
says,  "  I  ought ;  I  have  sinned ;  I  am  to  blame." 
That  something  is  weakened  and  degraded  in  this 
process  of  moral  degeneration. 

Degeneration  is  a  fact.  Nobody  denies  it.  It 
is  one  of  the  most  firmly  established  facts  in  the 
history  of  the  race. 

But  how  about  regeneration  ?  Is  that  an  impos- 
sibility ?  Is  it  true  that  a  man  may  change  from 
good  to  bad  and  from  bad  to  worse,  but  that  he 
cannot  change  from  bad  to  good  and  from  good  to 


CONVERSION  223 

better  ?  Is  there  no  such  thing  as  stopping  in  the 
downward  career,  and  struggling  upward  to  purer 
air  and  better  footing  ?  There  are  many,  in  these 
days,  who  seem  to  answer  this  question  very  posi- 
tively in  the  negative.  They  are  inclined  to  deny 
that  there  can  be  any  such  change  of  character  as 
that  which  is  described  under  the  terms  conversion 
and  regeneration.  Dr.  James  Freeman  Clarke, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Unitarian  minis- 
ters, says  :  "  It  is  quite  common,  among  Liberal 
Christians,  to  doubt  the  reality  or  deny  the  impor- 
tance of  such  changes  altogether.  With  them  the 
Christian  life  consists,  not  in  change,  but  in  pro- 
gress. In  the  Christian  course,  Orthodoxy  lays  the 
chief  stress  on  the  commencement ;  Liberal  Chris- 
tianity on  the  progress.  The  one  wishes  you  to 
begin  the  journey  without  seeming  to  care  whether 
you  go  forward  ;  the  other  urges  you  to  go  for- 
ward, without  inquiring  whether  you  have  begun 
to  go."  l  It  ought  to  be  understood  that  Dr.  Clarke 
thinks  both  these  answers  imperfect,  but  what  we 
are  now  concerned  with  is  his  testimony  that  there 
are  many  of  those  with  whom  he  is  associated  who 
"  doubt  the  reality  or  deny  the  importance  "  of  the 
change  known  as  conversion  or  regeneration.  Such 
doubts  and  denials  are  very  common  in  circles  still 
further  removed  from  the  sympathies  and  activities 
of  the  church. 

Nor  can  we  wonder  that  skepticism  has  arisen 
respecting  the  reality  of  such  changes.    Those  who 
1  Orthodoxy,  its  Truths  and  Errors,  p.  175. 


224    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

watch  the  conduct  of  the  multitudes  who  are  an- 
nually reported  as  having  passed  through  these 
changes,  in  connection  with  the  churches,  may  well 
indulge  this  doubt.  For  it  is  a  melancholy  fact 
that  out  of  the  thousands  who  every  winter  are 
counted  as  converts,  the  great  majority  appear  to 
fall  back  very  soon  into  their  old  ways.  No  very 
clear  change  in  their  motives,  tempers,  purposes, 
seems  to  have  taken  place.  The  experience  appears 
to  have  had  more  to  do  with  their  emotions  than 
with  their  principles  of  action  or  their  habits  of 
life.  And  it  must  be  owned  that,  in  the  teaching 
and  administration  of  all  the  churches,  much  more 
emphasis  has  generally  been  put  upon  certain  emo- 
tional accompaniments  of  conversion  than  upon 
the  change  of  character.  In  the  first  twenty-five 
years  of  my  life  I  passed  through  a  great  many 
revivals  ;  from  my  eighth  year  onward,  I  was  in- 
tensely interested  in  them  ;  I  know  as  well  as  any 
human  being  can  know  what  kinds  of  experiences 
and  effects  were  emphasized  in  the  preaching  and 
the  revival  methods  of  at  least  three  different  de- 
nominations ;  and  it  is  the  simple  truth  that  the 
main  interest  of  these  meetings  was  in  the  emo- 
tional effects  produced  by  them.  If  a  man  was 
sorely  depressed  in  his  feelings  for  a  season,  and  if 
that  depression  gave  way  to  a  feeling  of  exhilara- 
tion or  elation,  it  was  deemed  a  clear  case  of  con- 
version. The  whole  machinery  of  the  revival  was 
managed  with  a  view  to  producing  these  two  states 
of  feeling.  The  success  of  the  revival  largely  de- 


CONVERSION  225 

pended  on  the  power  of  the  revivalist  to  play  upon 
the  feelings  of  his  hearers. 

Now  I  am  far  from  wishing  that  religion  should 
be  divorced  from  emotion,  or  from  denying  that 
even  such  methods  as  these  do  often  result  in  deep 
and  lasting  changes  of  character ;  but  I  say  that 
the  tendency  of  much  of  what  has  been  known  as 
revivalism  has  been  to  exalt  the  emotional  elements 
of  the  change  unduly,  and  quite  to  neglect  the 
proper  direction  of  the  intellect,  the  conscience, 
and  the  will ;  and  therefore  a  large  proportion  of 
those  swept  into  the  churches  on  these  tides  of  feel- 
ing are  like  the  seed  sown  in  the  rocky  places 
which  has  no  deepness  of  earth  to  root  in,  and 
which,  when  the  sun  is  up,  withers  away.  Our 
towns  and  cities  are  full  of  these  people.  Of 
the  adult  Protestants  in  America,  who  are  now 
wholly  outside  of  all  church  influences,  I  dare  say 
that  it  would  be  found,  if  the  facts  were  known, 
that  a  very  large  majority  have  been  through  such 
an  experience  as  this,  in  connection  with  some  re- 
vival. Many  of  them  are  now  incorrigible  skep- 
tics concerning  this  change  which  men  call  conver- 
sion. They  will  tell  you  that  they  have  been 
through  it  themselves,  and  they  know  that  there  is 
nothing  in  it. 

All  such  facts,  and  it  must  be  owned  that  there 
are  too  many  of  them,  furnish  basis  for  the  doubt 
and  denial  with  which  we  are  dealing.  They  do 
undoubtedly  justify  us  in  admitting  that  there  is 
much  which  goes  by  the  name  of  conversion  and 


226    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

regeneration  which  is  spurious  and  unreal.  But  it 
is  not  easy  to  prove  a  negative  of  the  sort  we  are 
considering.  One  could  easily  show  that  ninety- 
nine  hundredths  of  all  the  ornaments  and  objects 
that  look  like  gold  are  not  gold,  —  that  they  are 
brass  or  pinchbeck  or  gilded  ware.  But  that  does 
not  prove  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  gold  ;  it 
rather  goes  to  show  that  there  must  be  such  a 
thing  and  that  it  is  a  very  precious  thing. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  question.  Degeneration, 
we  said,  is  an  undoubted  fact.  Is  it,  then,  credible 
that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  regeneration  ? 
Is  the  downward  path  the  only  one  open  to  human 
souls  ?  Is  the  universe  so  ordered  that  a  man  may 
freely  go  toward  ruin,  but  cannot  turn  fi-om  that 
path  and  set  his  face  toward  the  perfection  of  his 
manhood  ?  That  would  be  the  utterance  of  the 
dismalest  kind  of  pessimism.  The  fact  that  man 
can  deteriorate  is  a  fact  that  sometimes  calls  loud 
for  explanation  ;  but  if  you  should  couple  with 
that  the  belief  that  improvement  is  impossible,  that 
there  is  no  turning  back  from  the  downward  road, 
the  stars  would  be  blotted  from  the  sky.  No 
right-minded  man  would  want  to  live  in  such  a 
world  as  that. 

The  first  reason,  then,  for  believing  that  it  is 
possible  for  men  to  turn  from  the  ways  of  death  to 
the  ways  of  life  is  found  in  our  faith  that  there  is 
a  God  and  that  He  is  good.  This  is  the  starting- 
point  of  all  our  thinking,  and  it  is  the  one  truth,  as 
we  saw  in  our  first  lecture,  which  rests  on  the  firm- 


CONVERSION  227 

est  foundations.  If  there  is  a  God  who  knows  and 
loves  us,  the  ways  of  life  must  be  open  to  our  feet 
as  well  as  the  ways  of  death. 

The  second  reason  for  believing  it  is  that  all  lit- 
erature and  all  language  assume  the  possibility  of 
such  a  change  in  the  direction  of  human  conduct. 
The  Bible,  which,  whatever  else  may  be  said  about 
it,  is  by  all  reasonable  men  admitted  to  be  the  su- 
preme manual  of  human  conduct,  asserts  or  implies 
on  every  page  that  men  may  cease  to  do  evil  and 
learn  to  do  well.  There  is  no  great  epic  in  the 
world's  literature  which  does  not  rest  on  this  as- 
sumption. The  common  speech  of  men  always  and 
everywhere  bears  witness  to  it. 

The  third  reason  for  believing  it  is  that  we  have 
seen  the  thing  taking  place.  We  have  seen  men, 
under  the  influence  of  the  highest  motives,  with 
the  expression  of  trust  in  God  and  prayer  to  Him, 
turning  from  evil  courses  and  beginning  lives  of 
faith  and  virtue.  Some  of  us  have  the  record  of 
scores  and  hundreds  of  such  cases ;  we  have  seen 
the  better  life,  thus  consciously  begun,  go  on  with- 
out interruption  till  the  day  of  death. 

The  fourth  reason  for  believing  it  is  the  witness 
of  consciousness.  We  know  that  we  have  the 
power  to  choose  the  better  life  and  to  struggle 
toward  it.  Even  if  we  are  crippled  by  heredity 
and  borne  down  by  a  hostile  environment,  we  can 
turn  our  faces  upstream  and  swim  against  the  cur- 
rent. The  voice  that  bids  us  cast  away  our  trans- 
gressions and  make  ourselves  a  new  heart  and  a 


228    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

new  spirit,  to  turn  ourselves  and  live,  is  a  voice 
that  speaks  with  authority.  Every  man  knows 
when  he  hears  it  that  he  ought  to  obey  it ;  and  be- 
cause he  ought  therefore  he  can.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  carry  the  case  beyond  the  court  of  con- 
science. Every  one  who  reads  this,  and  who  knows 
that  he  is  suffering  moral  degeneration,  knows  also 
that  he  ought  to  stop  in  that  downward  career  and 
go  the  other  way. 

The  change  involves  the  reenthroneinent  of  the 
ideal.  The  resolve  which  expresses  it  is  simply 
this :  "  What  I  ought  to  be  I  will  be."  Instead 
of  weakly  surrendering  to  the  baser  impulses,  the 
man  resolves  that  the  law  of  his  mind,  —  the  ideal, 
—  and  not  the  law  in  his  members,  shall  rule  his 
life.  In  fact,  it  is  simply  a  struggle  to  regain  lost 
manhood  and  womanhood.  Degeneration  has  been 
going  on  ;  the  character  has  fallen  away  from  the 
manly  or  womanly  type  ;  the  determination  is  to 
stop  this  process  of  waste  and  destruction,  to  re- 
cover what  has  been  lost,  to  rebuild  what  is  falling 
into  decay. 

Doubtless,  when  this  becomes  a  serious  purpose, 
the  question  will  soon  arise  what  manner  of  man 
I  ought  to  be.  If  the  ideal  has  been  dimmed  by 
disobedience  we  desire  to  have  its  beauty  restored. 
There  is  no  use  in  aiming  at  anything  below  the 
best.  The  ideal  must  be  perfection.  We  may 
not  reach  it,  but  we  must  aim  at  nothing  below  it. 
"  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,"  is  the  only  command 
that  is  ever  heard  by  the  awakened  moral  nature 


CONVERSION  229 

turning  away  from  the  evil.  To  accept  any  lower 
standard  is  to  stultify  conscience  and  make  failure 
certain.  Suppose  the  draughtsman  should  say, 
"  I  will  not  try  to  make  this  straight  line  perfectly 
straight,  or  this  circle  perfectly  round ;  "  suppose 
the  builder  should  say,  "  I  will  not  try  to  build 
this  wall  or  this  column  perfectly  perpendicular." 
Doubtless  there  will  be  imperfections  in  all  this 
work  if  the  workman  do  his  best ;  but  perfection 
is  the  only  thing  he  can  try  for.  It  is  just  so  with 
character.  The  man  who  knows  that  he  has  been 
sinking  below  himself  feels  that  there  is  no  salva- 
tion for  him  except  as  he  rises  above  himself. 
And  no  man  can  lift  himself  by  taking  hold  of 
himself.  He  must  take  hold  of  something  above 
him.  His  own  imperfections  afford  him  neither 
pattern  nor  inspiration.  He  must  lay  hold  on  the 
infinite  perfection. 

Thus  it  is  that  it  becomes  the  logical,  rational, 
natural  thing  for  the  man  who  turns  from  the 
downward  path  to  turn  to  God.  Any  man  who 
believes  in  God  must  turn  to  God  when  he  turns 
from  sin.  In  the  far  country,  his  first  sane  thought 
is  of  his  Father's  house,  and  his  first  right  word  is, 
"  I  will  arise  and  go  to  ray  Father."  For  any  man 
who  believes  in  God,  turning  from  wrong  and  turn- 
ing to  God  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  "  For 
any  man  who  believes  in  God,"  I  say  ;  but  of 
course  I  mean  any  man  who  believes  in  the  God 
that  you  and  I  have  been  taught  to  believe  in. 
There  are  gods  many  and  lords  many  ;  the  God  of 


230    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

whom  from  our  childhood  we  have  been  taught  is 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  from  Him  that  we  have  learned  what  we 
know  about  God  ;  it  is  the  conception  that  He  has 
given  us  which  arises  in  our  thought  whenever  we 
begin  to  think  of  that  infinite  perfection  which 
lays  its  commands  upon  us.  "  Be  ye  therefore 
perfect  even  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect." 
He  is  one  who  loves  us  all,  even  the  unthankful 
and  the  evil ;  who  meets  the  returning  prodigal  a 
long  way  off ;  who  follows  the  wanderer  into  the 
wilderness  and  brings  him  home.  It  is  our  belief 
that  the  Infinite  Perfection  is  Infinite  Compas- 
sion which  makes  it  possible  to  repent  and  return 
from  our  evil  ways.  And  we  have  been  made  to 
believe  this  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
scientific,  the  historical  fact,  as  Professor  Harris 
has  told  us :  "  Only  one  answer  can  be  given  to 
the  question  how  the  belief  in  God's  character  was 
created.  It  came  from  Jesus ;  and  it  was  from  the 
life  even  more  than  from  the  words  of  Jesus.  .  .  . 
All  that  came  to  the  surface  in  expression,  words 
spoken,  deeds  done,  endurance  of  indignities,  brav- 
ing of  ignominious  death,  —  all  welled  up  out  of 
his  consciousness  of  God  the  Father  living  in  him, 
speaking  and  working  through  him,  shining  out  in 
the  relation  of  Fatherhood  and  Sonship.  This  is 
how  the  belief  in  God's  Fatherhood  came  to  the 
world.  He  vitalized  it,  just  by  being  in  the  world 
and  living  out  that  life  of  unbroken  union  with  the 
Father.  Looking  abroad  we  are  confused.  Look- 


CONVERSION  231 

ing  at  him  we  see  God  in  the  character  of  love. 
The  Fatherhood  of  God,  with  all  it  involves,  with 
the  faith  and  hope  it  inspires,  was  given  to  the 
belief  of  men  in  that  personality  whose  life  was 
rooted  in  God  and  whose  teaching,  service,  suffer- 
ing, and  triumph  expressed  the  very  character  of 
God.  As  Jesus  is  in  character  so  God  is.  All 
this  has  implications  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ  which  need  not  now  be  considered.  But 
Jesus  did  make  men  believe  that  God  is  a  good 
and  loving  Father,  who  welcomes  them,  however 
bad  they  may  have  been,  when  they  return  to 
him  with  penitence  and  trust  as  little  children. 
Jesus  is  the  point  of  connection  between  men  and 
God.  The  divine  life  flashes  through  him,  becomes 
visible  in  his  perfect  humanity,  and  thrills  into 
the  life  of  men.  With  one  hand  he  clasps  the 
hand  of  man  ;  with  the  other  he  clasps  the  hand  of 
God,  and  transmits  the  life  of  God  to  man."  l 

Mark  you,  I  ain  not  saying  that  no  man  ever 
found  his  way  to  the  Father  except  through  Jesus 
Christ :  in  every  nation  devout  and  penitent  souls 
find  Him,  and  trust  in  Him ;  I  am  only  saying  that 
for  you  and  me  Jesus  Christ  has  been  the  revealer, 
the  mediator.  Our  conceptions  of  God  have  come 
through  him.  Others,  I  do  not  doubt,  may  have 
seen  the  glories  of  the  great  Salon  Carre  in  the 
Louvre  by  rushlight,  or  torchlight,  or  lamplight ; 
I  know  that  I  saw  them  by  sunlight,  and  I  doubt  if 
there  can  be  any  better  light  in  which  to  see  them. 
1  Moral  Evolution,  p.  314. 


232     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

And  you  and  I,  whether  we  know  it  or  not,  whether 
we  wish  it  or  not,  have  learned  what  we  know  about 
God  through  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  through  Him 
that  we  have  been  made  to  believe  in  the  divine 
compassion,  and  are  filled  with  the  hopes  of  divine 
help  and  succor  when  we  turn  from  our  evil  ways. 

I  have  used  the  two  words,  conversion  and  re- 
generation, interchangeably,  as  if  they  meant  the 
same  thing.  I  have  done  so  because  in  our  expe- 
rience there  is  no  possibility  of  distinguishing  them. 
Conversion,  if  we  must  make  a  distinction,  signifies 
that  part  of  the  change  which  has  to  do  with  our 
own  conscious  purposes  and  choices.  Regeneration 
describes  the  divine  influences  which  act  upon  us, 
softening  our  hearts,  awakening  our  consciences, 
arousing  our  nobler  feelings.  When  the  Prodigal 
sat  there  musing  in  the  fields,  and  the  thought  of 
his  home  and  his  father  was  borne  into  his  heart, 
and  he  saw  how  willful  and  foolish  he  had  been, 
the  work  of  regeneration  was  going  on  within  him ; 
and  when  he  said,  "  I  will  arise  and  go  unto  my 
father,"  that  was  conversion. 

Which  of  these  is  first  in  the  order  of  grace?  I 
suppose  that  regeneration  must  be,  because  God  is 
first  in  everything  ;  He  is  the  Author  of  all  life  ;  it 
is  in  Him  that  we  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being.  But  in  the  order  of  experience  there  is 
neither  first  nor  last.  No  man  is  regenerated  till 
his  own  will  has  responded  to  the  divine  influence ; 
no  man  can  be  converted  without  the  aid  of  the 
divine  spirit  any  more  than  he  can  see  without 


CONVERSION  233 

light  or  breathe  without  air.  Which  is  the  first 
condition  of  fire,  fuel  or  flame  ?  It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  there  can  be  fire  without  something  to 
burn,  or  how  the  fuel  can  burn  until  the  flame  or 
the  spark  is  brought  to  it.  Each  is  conditional  for 
the  other. 

But  the  action  of  this  divine  Spirit,  which  re- 
stores our  souls,  which  gently  leads  us  back  from 
our  wanderings  into  the  ways  of  life,  is  silent  and 
subtle  and  manifold  in  its  workings.  It  is  the 
Spirit  of  life  ;  and  life  has  just  as  many  ways 
of  coming  to  light,  just  as  many  types  and  forms 
and  manifestations  in  the  spiritual  world,  as  in  the 
physical  world.  Some  people  think  that  the  pro- 
cess of  conversion  is  a  stereotyped  routine  ;  that 
there  is  a  mill  to  go  through,  and  that  everybody 
must  go  in  at  the  hopper  and  come  out  at  the 
shoot ;  that  unless  you  have  had  the  regulation 
experience  your  conversion  is  not  genuine.  There 
are  many  to  whom  it  is  incredible  that  any  man 
should  begin  to  live  a  new  life  without  going 
through  a  course  at  the  mourners'  bench.  Yet 
Jesus  says  that  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
human  soul  is  like  the  summer  wind,  which  "  blow- 
eth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  canst  not  tell  whence 
it  cometh  nor  whither  it  goeth,"  —  subtle,  myste- 
rious, unobserved  in  its  silent  approaches.  By  a 
thousand  different  avenues  it  finds  its  way  into  our 
lives.  Something  makes  us  serious  and  thought- 
ful ;  the  shadow  of  a  divine  discontent  falls  gently 
upon  the  landscape  of  our  thought ;  the  unworthi- 


234    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

ness  of  our  aims,  the  poverty  of  our  gains  begin  to 
trouble  us  ;  visions  of  a  larger  and  nobler  life  pass 
before  us,  beckoning  and  calling.  Such  thoughts 
may  come  as  we  muse  alone  at  the  eventide,  look- 
ing away  to  the  fading  light  in  the  western  sky 
and  to  the  steadfast  stars  above  us.  They  may 
come  to  us  as  we  walk  the  crowded  streets  and  scan 
the  eager  faces,  and  think  how  many  are  seeking 
the  good  of  life  and  how  few  there  be  that  find  it. 
They  may  come  to  us  in  some  moment  of  defeat, 
when  we  are  suddenly  made  aware  of  powers  wasted 
and  ambitions  gone  astray.  They  may  come  to  us 
—  these  heavenly  visitants  —  in  the  hour  of  be- 
reavement :  — 

"  With  silence  only  as  their  benediction, 

God's  angels  come, 

Where  in  the  shadow  of  a  deep  affliction 
The  soul  sits  dumh." 

But  most  often,  I  think,  the  new  desires  for  better 
life  are  kindled  in  us  by  the  touch  upon  our  lives 
of  some  nature  purer  and  better  than  our  own, 
which  reproves  us,  and  charms  us,  and  inspires  us 
with  new  hope.  The  divine  Spirit  may  reveal  the 
Christ  to  us  in  many  ways,  but  most  of  us  have 
seen  him  first  in  some  good  man  or  woman.  The 
life  is  the  light  of  men  —  always  was,  and  ever 
shall  be.  There  is  regenerating  power  in  holy  hu- 
man lives.  This  is  the  way  God  means  to  convey 
his  grace,  by  living  epistles,  from  parent  to  child, 
from  teacher  to  pupil,  from  lover  to  lover,  from 
friend  to  friend.  There  is  a  subtle  energy  in  high 


CONVERSION  235 

spiritual  character,  the  effluence  of  which  is  deeply 
felfc  by  all  who  come  within  its  sphere.  The  great 
poets  have  all  felt  this,  none  more  deeply  than 
Browning.  His  poetry  says  everywhere,  Professor 
Corson  tells  us,  "  that  through  conversion,  through 
wheeling  into  a  new  centre  its  spiritual  system,  the 
soul  attains  to  saving  truth."  Perhaps  the  most 
striking  instance  of  this  in  Browning's  poetry  is 
shown  us  in  the  character  of  Caponsacchi,  in  "  The 
Ring  and  the  Book."  This  gay  young  priest, 
with  none  too  keen  a  conscience,  and  with  all  his 
thoughts  of  life  and  conduct  perverted  by  the  low 
standards  of  his  brother  ecclesiastics,  is  brought 
into  close  touch  with  Pompilia,  the  whitest,  purest, 
womanliest  soul  in  all  fiction,  and  the  regenerating 
effect  of  her  life  upon  his  is  one  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful incidents  in  literature.  The  story,  as  Capon- 
sacchi himself  tells  it,  "  admits  us,"  as  Corson  says, 
"  to  the  very  heart  of  Browning's  poetry,  —  admits 
us  to  the  great  Idea  .  .  .  which  110  other  poet  .  .  . 
has  brought  out  with  the  same  degree  of  distinct- 
ness, —  the  great  Idea  which  may  be  variously 
characterized  as  that  of  soul-kindling,  soul-quicken- 
ing, adjustment  of  soul-attitude,  regeneration,  con- 
version, through  personality"  -  Pompilia  had 
laid  her  commands  on  this  stranger,  calling  him  as 
a  true  knight  of  God  to  deliver  her ;  she  had 
greatly  trusted  and  honored  him ;  the  subtle  en- 
ergy of  her  pure  soul  had  struck  through  and  trans- 
figured his,  and  he  passed  from  her  presence  into 
1  Introduction  to  Browning's  Poetry,  p.  59. 


236     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

newness  of  life.  Thus  he  tells  the  judges  what 
happened : — 

"  '  Thought  ?  '  nay,  Sirs,  what  shall  follow  was  not  thought ; 
I  have  thought  sometimes,  and  thought  long  and  hard. 
I  have  stood  before,  gone  round  a  serious  thing, 
Tasked  my  whole  mind  to  touch  and  clasp  it  close, 
As  I  stretch  forth  my  arm  to  touch  this  bar. 
God  and  man,  and  what  duty  I  owe  both,  — 
I  dare  to  say  I  have  confronted  these 
In  thought :  but  no  such  faculty  helped  here. 
I  put  forth  no  thought,  —  powerless,  all  that  night 
I  paced  the  city  :  it  was  the  first  Spring. 
By  the  invasion  I  lay  passive  to, 
In  rushed  new  things,  the  old  were  rapt  away  ; 
Alike  abolished  —  the  imprisonment 
Of  the  outside  air,  the  inside  weight  o'  the  world 
That  pulled  me  down.     Death  meant,  to  spurn  the  ground, 
Soar  to  the  sky,  —  die  well  and  you  do  that. 

"  Sirs,  I  obeyed.     Obedience  was  too  strange,  — 

This  new  thing  that  had  been  struck  into  me 

By  the  look  o'  the  lady,  —  to  d;ire  disobey 

The  first  authoritative  word.     'T  was  God's. 

I  had  been  lifted  to  the  level  of  her, 

Could  take  such  sounds  into  my  sense.     I  said 
'  We  too  are  cognizant  o'  the  Master  now ; 

She  it  is  bids  me  bow  the  head  ;  how  true, 

I  am  a  priest !     I  see  the  function  here ; 

I  thought  the  other  way  self-sacrifice  : 

This  is  the  true,  seals  up  the  perfect  sum. 

I  pay  it,  sit  down,  silently  obey.'  " 

From  this  hour  the  man  is  changed  ;  he  makes 
you  see  and  feel  that  old  things  had  passed  away ; 
that  all  things  had  become  new  ;  the  work  had 
been  wrought  in  him  by  the  transforming  power  of 
a  high  and  pure  personality. 


CONVERSION  237 

Browning  is  not,  you  see,  afraid  of  spiritual 
crises.  He  believes  in  them.  He  thinks  that  no 
better  thing  can  happen  to  a  man  than  to  be 
roused,  startled,  shaken  out  of  himself  by  some 
great  experience.  So  he  sings :  — 

"  Oh,  \ve  're  sunk  enough  here,  God  kuows ! 

But  not  quite  so  sunk  that  moments, 
Sure  though  seldom,  are  denied  us, 

When  the  spirit's  true  endowments 
Stand  out  plainly  from  its  false  ones, 

And  apprise  it  if  pursuing 
Or  the  right  way  or  the  wrong  way, 

To  its  triumph  or  undoing. 

"  There  are  flashes  struck  from  midnights, 

There  are  fire-flames  noondays  kindle, 
Wherehy  piled-up  honors  perish, 

Whereby  swollen  ambitions  dwindle, 
While  just  this  or  that  poor  impulse, 

Which  for  once  had  play  unstifled, 
Seems  the  sole  work  of  a  lifetime, 

That  away  the  rest  have  trifled." 1 

It  is  in  these  critical  hours  of  our  experience  that 
new  conceptions  of  the  meaning  of  life  come  to  us, 
and  we  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  our  minds. 

Such  is  the  verdict  of  a  great  master  of  the  lore 
of  the  spirit.  "  With  Mr.  Browning,"  says  Ed- 
ward Dowden,  "  the  moments  are  most  glorious  .  .  . 
in  which  a  resolution  that  changes  the  current  of  life 
has  been  taken  in  reliance  upon  that  insight  which 
vivid  emotion  bestows;  and  those  periods  of  our 
history  are  charged  most  fully  with  moral  purpose 
1  Cristina. 


238    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

which  take  their  direction  from  moments  such  as 
these." 

If  these  things  are  so,  it  is  not  only  true  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  conversion,  but  it  is  prob- 
able that  it  is  a  much  more  common  thing,  a  much 
more  homely  and  reasonable  thing,  than  we  have 
sometimes  supposed.  It  is  not  only  in  the  sanctu- 
ary and  before  the  altar  that  this  great  experience 
comes  to  us.  It  may  come  even  to  the  infant,  ly- 
ing on  its  mother's  breast,  and  looking  into  her 
face.  By  the  mother's  holy  love,  the  child's  soul 
may  be  transfigured,  its  tendencies  to  selfishness 
and  animalism  checked,  its  better  impulses  rein- 
forced. More  is  done,  Dr.  Bushnell  says,  "  to  fix 
the  moral  and  religious  character  of  children  be- 
fore the  age  of  language  than  after."  The  shrine 
at  which  most  true  conversions  occur  is  the  mo- 
ther's knee.  But  there  are  numberless  other  ex- 
periences in  which  the  same  transforming  influence 
falls  upon  the  life,  and  changes  the  current  of  its 
thoughts  and  purposes,  arresting  the  processes  of 
moral  decay,  and  turning  the  soul  toward  the  firm 
choice  of  its  own  ideal.  I  am  fain  to  believe  that  a 
great  many  men  and  women,  whose  names  are  not 
written  on  the  rolls  of  the  churches,  have  known 
the  substance  of  this  change  which  we  call  conver- 
sion, and  are  following  the  leadings  of  God's  spirit 
toward  the  goal  of  perfect  manhood  and  woman- 
hood. 

Yet  I  am  equally  convinced  that  there  are  many 
men  and  women  who  have  not  as  yet  passed 


CONVERSION  239 

through  it,  and  to  whom  it  is  the  one  thing  needful. 
Some  of  them  are  members  of  the  church  and  some 
are  not.  But  the  one  thing  that  seems  clear  con- 
cerning them  is  that  degeneration  is  the  word  that 
best  describes  them.  They  are  becoming  less  truth- 
ful, less  honorable,  less  pure,  less  kind,  more  reck- 
less, more  self-indulgent,  more  absorbed  in  things 
of  the  earth.  They  are  going  in  this  downward 
road  against  the  protest  of  their  own  better  na- 
tures, against  the  strivings  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
What  they  need  is  conversion.  Culture  will  never 
do  ;  they  must  stop  short  in  the  road  they  are 
traveling  and  go  the  other  way.  They  must  re- 
enthrone  the  ideal  to  which  they  have  so  long  been 
disobedient.  They  must  highly  resolve  that  hence- 
forth the  law  of  the  mind,  and  not  the  law  of  the 
members,  shall  bear  rule  in  their  lives,  that  by 
God's  grace  they  will  become  the  men  and  women 
that  they  ought  to  be.  They  went  down  by  sur- 
rendering, they  must  go  up  by  fighting.  They 
must  call  on  Him  who  has  kindled  this  desire  in 
their  hearts  to  help  them  in  realizing  it.  And 
they  must  put  themselves  into  an  environment  that 
will  feed  and  stimulate  the  better  elements  of  their 
lives  instead  of  the  baser  ones.  For  all  who  will 
do  this  there  is  life  and  hope  and  the  promise  of 
victory. 


XII 

THE   MEANING   OF   BAPTISM 

"  WHAT  is  the  use  of  the  sacraments  ? "  is  the 
question  now  before  us. 

A  sacrament  —  sacramentum  —  in  the  Roman 
usage  sometimes  signified  the  oath  taken  by  sol- 
diers at  the  time  of  their  first  enlistment,  and  some- 
times a  sum  of  money  deposited  as  security  with  a 
court  by  a  suitor  in  entering  upon  litigation.  The 
unsuccessful  litigant  forfeited  this  deposit  to  "  sa- 
cred uses."  This  was  the  word  which,  in  the  West- 
ern Church,  was  applied  to  certain  ceremonials  of 
religion.  It  is  not  easy  to  connect  the  Latin  word 
with  the  Christian  rite  ;  perhaps  the  notion  of  a 
vow  or  pledge  was  in  the  minds  of  those  who  first 
spoke  of  these  ceremonies  as  sacraments.  The 
word  is  not  in  the  New  Testament ;  I  am  not  sure 
at  what  date  the  Christians  first  began  to  use  it. 

In  the  Greek  provinces  this  word  was  not  used. 
"Mysterion "  was  the  name  which  the  Greek 
Fathers  applied  to  these  solemnities.  That  word 
denoted  any  secret  which  had  been  revealed,  and 
especially  the  secret  religious  ceremonies  practiced 
in  the  worship  of  the  gods  of  Greece.  Thus,  in 
the  earlier  days,  the  Greek  Christians  described  as 


THE   MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  241 

mysteries  what  the  Latins  then  knew,  and  we  now 
know,  as  the  sacraments. 

In  the  early  church  it  would  appear  that  but 
two  of  these  rites  possessed  a  sacramental  charac- 
ter ;  as  the  ecclesiasticism  developed  itself,  others 
were  added  until  no  less  than  seven  sacraments 
were  recognized,  —  baptism,  confirmation,  the  eu- 
charist,  penance,  extreme  unction,  holy  orders,  and 
matrimony.  The  Reformation  reduced  the  number 
of  sacraments  to  the  original  two  observed  by  the 
apostolic  churches,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  twenty-fifth  of  the  English  Articles  of  Reli- 
gion says :  "  There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  of 
Christ  our  Lord  in  the  gospel,  that  is  to  say,  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  Those  five 
commonly  called  sacraments,  that  is  to  say,  Con- 
firmation, Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony,  and  Ex- 
treme Unction,  are  not  to  be  counted  as  sacraments 
of  the  gospel,  being  such  as  have  grown  partly  out 
of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  Apostles,  partly  are 
states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  yet 
have  not  like  nature  of  sacraments  with  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  that  they  have  not  any 
visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God."  This 
is  a  fair  statement  of  the  attitude  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  toward  this  question  of  the  number  of 
sacraments.  We  are  speaking  for  the  Reformed 
Churches,  and  are  considering  therefore  only  those 
which  they  recognize. 

The  origin  of  baptism,  to  which  at  the  present 
time  we  shall  confine  our  study,  is  not  altogether 


242    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

clear.  That  it  was  adopted  from  the  first  as  the 
initial  rite,  by  which  men  were  received  into  the 
Christian  society,  is  not  doubted.  This  initiation 
was  accompanied  by  the  application  of  water,  in 
some  way,  to  the  person.  But  this  ceremony  was 
not  invented  for  the  Christian  community.  It  was 
borrowed  or  adapted  from  something  that  had 
previously  existed.  This  is  almost  the  universal 
fact.  The  forms  of  ecclesiastical  usage,  the  forms 
of  ritual,  are  rarely  manufactured  out  of  whole 
cloth ;  like  political  and  social  usages  and  forms 
they  are  generally  taken  over  from  previous  sys- 
tems and  altered  somewhat  to  suit  present  needs. 
These  ceremonial  usages  are  largely  the  product  of 
evolutionary  forces,  growths  whose  beginnings  we 
can  find  in  the  earliest  ages  and  often  connected 
with  crude  ideas  and  barbarous  lives. 

"  Curious  minds,"  says  Professor  Allen,  "  may 
seek  to  antedate  the  origin  of  these  venerable  rites, 
carrying  it  back  into  pre-Christian  ages,  even  to 
savage  customs  before  the  beginning  of  history. 
But  we  must  learn  to  outgrow  the  fallacy  that  the 
origin  of  a  custom  neutralizes  its  validity  ;  for  cer- 
tainly no  cruder,  grosser  origin  could  be  demon- 
strated than  is  now  set  forth  by  the  scientific  prin- 
ciple of  evolution  for  the  origin  and  descent  of 
man.  If  Jews  or  heathens  can  be  shown  to  have 
anticipated  such  rites  as  these  it  only  confirms  their 
significance.  We  have  got  beyond  the  old  apolo- 
getic which  sought  to  prove  that  Christianity  in 
its  doctrines  or  ethics  or  practice  was  something 


THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  243 

entirely  new  to  the  world.  Its  coincidences  with 
older  religions  or  older  ethical  systems  are  so  many 
fresh  illustrations  of  its  truth."  1 

The  immediate  historical  connection  of  Christian 
baptism  is  with  the  baptism  of  John  the  forerun- 
ner. John's  baptism  was  primarily  a  baptism  of 
repentance  ;  it  signified  the  putting  away  of  the 
old  sins,  and  the  cleansing  of  the  life  ;  but  it  must 
have  meant  more  than  this,  or  Jesus  would  not 
have  submitted  to  it.  It  must  have  possessed  a 
social  as  well  as  an  individual  significance.  I  think 
that  it  denoted  the  formation  of  a  new  society  to 
which  by  this  simple  ceremonial  men  were  admit- 
ted. Probably  the  meaning  of  it  was  that  the  whole 
people  had  become  so  defiled  and  perverted  in 
thought  and  life  that  a  new  Israel,  a  spiritual 
Israel,  must  be  called  forth  and  consecrated,  and 
this  was  the  form  of  admission  into  the  new  society, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  baptism  of  Jesus 
was  his  initiation  into  this  new  society,  of  which  he 
was  indeed  the  head,  but  of  which  he  would  also 
be  a  member,  identified  with  his  brethren,  and  not 
separate  from  them.  So  that  Christian  baptism  is 
thus  really  a  continuation  of  John's  baptism,  a  de- 
velopment out  of  it,  carrying  over  the  same  central 
idea  and  adding  to  it  other  and  higher  concep- 
tions. 

We  are  expressly  told  that  our  Lord  himself 
never  baptized.  His  disciples  were  attached  to  him 
by  no  ceremonies  or  formalities  whatever.  Yet 
1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  400. 


244    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

when,  in  Jerusalem,  on  and  after  Pentecost,  ad- 
herents were  added  to  the  Christian  community, 
baptism  was  administered  to  them.  That  was  the 
ceremony  by  which  they  signified  their  intention  of 
being  known  as  his  followers.  The  apostles  pro- 
claimed this  as  requisite  for  enrollment  in  the  new 
community. 

This  initiatory  rite  involved  two  ideas  :  (1)  The 
candidates  were  baptized  "  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ."  This  implied  a  confession  of  faith  in  him 
as  the  Messiah  and  a  vow  of  loyalty  to  him.  His 
name  was  named  upon  them ;  they  owned  that 
they  were  his  men  ;  they  wore  his  favors  ;  they 
wished  to  be  counted  among  his  followers.  Bap- 
tism was  the  sacramental  oath  of  their  enlistment 
in  his  service.  (2)  They  were  also  baptized  "  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  This  was  quite  in  keeping 
with  all  the  Jewish  ideas  connected  with  the  rites  of 
purification.  Such  a  symbolical  cleansing  from  past 
offenses  was  part  of  their  own  ritual.  Doubtless 
the  one  great  sin  from  which  baptism  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  signified  the  absolution  was  the  sin 
of  putting  to  death  the  Messiah.  But  doubtless, 
also,  they  understood  that  with  this  sin  they  must 
seek  to  be  cleansed  from  all  their  other  transgres- 
sions,—  to  turn  over  a  new  leaf,  and  begin  life 
afresh.  This  is  that  appeal  of  a  good  conscience, 
which  Peter  says  that  baptism  is  ;  the  application 
to  the  body  of  pure  water  signified  the  desire  to 
be  "  cleansed  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit,"  and  the  faith  that  those  who  thus  iden- 


THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  245 

tified  themselves  in  heart  and  life  with  Jesus 
Christ  would  obtain  from  him  the  inspiration  and 
help  by  which  they  should  gain  this  inward  purity. 

Several  interesting  facts  come  to  light  as  we 
study  the  customs  of  the  early  Christians  in  the 
light  of  all  the  new  learning.  The  exploration  of 
documents  and  monuments  has  made  some  things 
plain  which  were  formerly  in  doubt.  There  seems 
to  be  little  question  that  the  Christians  of  the  ear- 
liest times  usually  baptized  by  immersion.  There 
was  no  hard  and  fast  rule  about  it,  but  that  mode 
was  preferred.  The  references  to  the  ordinance  in 
the  earliest  writers  bear  this  interpretation.  One 
of  the  best  and  most  authoritative  sources  is  that 
little  book  entitled  "  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,"  which  was  discovered  and  published  only 
a  few  years  ago.  This  book  was  written  as  early  as 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  not  more  than 
fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  and 
it  gives  a  clear  account  of  the  observances  of  the 
Christians  of  that  time,  in  the  form  of  specific  di- 
rections to  the  churches  and  their  ministers.  Its 
words  about  baptism  are  as  follows  :  — 

"  Now  concerning  baptism,  thus  baptize  ye  :  hav- 
ing first  uttered  all  these  things  [having  repeated 
the  rules  of  conduct  by  which  Christians  must  gov- 
ern their  lives]  baptize  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
running  water.  But  if  thou  hast  not  running 
water,  baptize  in  other  water ;  and  if  thou  canst 
not  in  cold,  then  in  warm.  But  if  thou  hast  neither, 


246    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

pour  water  upon  the  head  thrice,  into  the  name  of 
Father  and  Son  and  Spirit." 

This  makes  it  clear  that  the  preference  of  these 
early  Christians  was  for  baptism  by  immersion  in 
a  river ;  the  use  of  a  baptistery  or  tank  would  not 
have  seemed  good  to  them,  though  it  would  have 
been  allowed  if  no  stream  were  accessible ;  and 
so  would  the  method  of  affusion  when  that  was 
more  convenient.  The  decisive  fact  is  that  the 
mode  was  not  imperative  ;  any  reverent  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  body  answered  the  require- 
ments of  these  sensible  believers.  Naturally,  as 
men's  conceptions  became  broader  and  more  spir- 
itual, less  and  less  emphasis  would  be  placed  on 
that  which  was  merely  outward.  The  question 
of  the  mode  became  more  and  more  a  question  of 
indifferency.  The  further  general  adoption  of 
affusion  resulted  from  putting  less  emphasis  on 
the  external  form. 

It  is  also  probable  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
was  unknown  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  The 
supposed  references  to  infant  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  are  dubious,  and  the  arguments  which 
seek  to  show  that  it  must  have  taken  the  place 
of  the  Jewish  rite  of  circumcision  are  far  from  con- 
clusive. There  is  not  a  hint  of  it  in  the  "  Teach- 
ing of  the  Twelve  Apostles."  "  It  is  possible," 
says  Professor  Allen,  "  that  infant  baptism  was 
practiced  to  some  extent  from  the  first,  or  even 
that  it  was  administered  by  the  apostles.  But 
there  is  no  demonstrative  evidence  on  this  point  to 


THE   MEANING   OF   BAPTISM  247 

which  we  can  appeal.  That  the  prevailing  custom 
in  the  early  church  was  adult  baptism  is  admitted. 
Evidence  that  a  change  was  taking  place  is  abun- 
dant in  the  third  century."  1  "  Even  among  Chris- 
tian households,"  says  Dean  Stanley,  "the  in- 
stances of  Chrysostom,  Gregory,  Nazianzen,  Basil, 
Ephrem  of  Edessa,  Augustine,  Ambrose,  are 
decisive  proofs  that  [the  baptism  of  infants]  was 
not  only  not  obligatory,  but  not  usual.  All  these 
distinguished  personages  had  Christian  parents, 
and  yet  were  not  baptized  until  they  reached  matu- 


By  many  persons  this  admission  will  be  regarded 
as  decisive  evidence  that  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  is  not  warranted  in  the  modern  church. 
But  this  is  not  clear.  We  are  doing  a  great  many 
things  to-day  that  those  Christians  of  the  first  cen- 
turies never  dreamed  of  doing  :  we  ought  to  have 
a  much  larger  conception  of  the  meaning  of  Chris- 
tianity than  they  ever  had.  Perhaps  the  admis- 
sion of  children  to  baptism  may  be  due  to  a  higher 
and  truer  view  of  the  Christian  society  than  was 
vouchsafed  to  them. 

We  must  not,  however,  deny  that  some  supersti- 
tious and  unworthy  reasons  were  mingled  with  the 
higher  and  nobler  ones  in  bringing  about  this 
change.  In  truth  the  little  children  have  had  a 
great  deal  to  do,  in  one  way  and  another,  with  the 
development  of  our  theology  and  our  ethics  ;  our 

1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  406. 

2  Christian  Institutions,  p.  24. 


248    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

relation  to  them  has  brought  out  some  of  the  worst 
as  well  as  some  of  the  best  traits  of  human  nature, 
and  some  of  the  darkest  as  well  as  some  of  the 
brightest  phases  of  speculative  thought. 

During  these  early  Christian  centuries  infanti- 
cide was  fearfully  prevalent  throughout  the  Roman 
empire,  and  it  is  at  least  possible  that  the  belief 
in  the  damnation  of  infants  was  strengthened  by  a 
Christian  instinct  which  strove  to  suppress  this 
horrible  crime.  The  Christian  who  reproved  his 
heathen  neighbor  for  putting  his  little  child  to 
death  would  naturally  magnify  the  injury  to  the 
child  by  emphasizing  the  misery  to  which  it  was 
consigned  after  death.  And  this  deepening  sense 
of  possible  peril  to  the  little  children  may  well 
have  led  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism.  Doubt- 
less, too,  the  gradual  growth  of  the  belief  in  the 
saving  efficacy  of  baptism  had  much  to  do  with 
the  introduction  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  Augus- 
tine it  was  who,  by  his  tremendous  logic,  forced 
both  these  beliefs  upon  the  church.  That  infants 
were  doomed  to  eternal  death  for  Adam's  sin  and 
that  baptism  is  indispensable  to  salvation  were 
ideas  with  which  he  darkened  the  mind  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  for  a  thousand  years  and  more.  Un- 
der the  spell  of  this  horrible  doctrine  parents  has- 
tened to  present  their  children  at  the  font.  This 
was  not  indeed  any  guarantee  of  their  salvation  ; 
for  Augustine's  dreadful  decree  of  predestination 
still  hung  its  black  shadow  over  them.  No  infant 
could  be  saved  who  was  not  baptized  ;  but  it  was 


THE   MEANING   OF  BAPTISM  249 

far  from  being  true  that  all  baptized  infants  were 
saved.  God's  electing  grace  never  went  outside 
the  visible  church  to  save  any  one,  infant  or  adult ; 
his  range  of  choice  was  strictly  limited  to  those 
inside  the  church ;  all  outside  were  reprobate, 
whether  or  no  ;  among  the  baptized,  he  exercised 
his  sovereign  prerogative,  and  saved  such  of  them 
as  He  was  pleased  to  save.  Children  might  not  be 
saved  if  they  were  baptized,  but  could  not  be  unless 
they  were  baptized.  It  was  the  prevalence  of  this 
belief  that  made  infant  baptism  universal  in  the 
church  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 

Augustine's  doctrine  of  predestination  was  con- 
siderably modified  by  the  Catholic  theologians  in 
later  years  ;  but  his  doctrine  that  baptism  is  in- 
dispensable to  salvation  has  held  its  ground  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  this  day.  It  is  not  now 
believed  by  good  Catholics  that  unbaptized  infants 
dying  in  infancy  are  tormented  in  hell  fire  ;  they 
are  consigned  to  an  abode  of  comparative  comfort ; 
but  they  are  forever  excluded  from  the  presence  of 
God.  And  the  belief  of  the  extreme  High  Church 
party  in  the  Anglican  Church  is,  I  believe,  sub- 
stantially the  same. 

All  this  is  very  melancholy.  To  believe  that  the 
Father  in  heaven  can  permit  the  little  ones  who 
are  taken  out  of  this  world  before  they  come  to 
years  of  discretion  to  be  forever  exiled  from  his 
presence  because  of  the  neglect  or  the  ignorance  of 
their  parents,  —  because  no  consecrating  drops  of 
water  have  fallen  upon  their  foreheads, — is  to  take 


250     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

a  strange  view  of  his  character.  And  so  far  as  the 
prevalence  of  a  belief  like  this  has  tended  to  bring 
about  the  change  from  the  adult  baptism  of  the 
apostolic  days  to  the  infant  baptism  of  later  days, 
we  may  deplore  the  means,  whatever  we  may  say 
of  the  end. 

It  is,  however,  true  that  God  often  makes  the 
wrath  of  man  to  praise  Him ;  and  the  modern  prac- 
tice may  be  a  good  one,  even  though  the  paths 
which  have  led  to  it  are  dark  and  tortuous.  Most 
of  those  who  in  these  days  present  their  children 
at  the  font  for  baptism  do  so,  not  because  they 
have  any  fear  that  the  omission  of  the  rite  will  con- 
sign their  children  to  perdition,  but  for  other  and 
far  worthier  reasons.  And  I  suppose  that  even 
while  the  black  spectre  of  infant  damnation  was 
filling  the  minds  of  believers  with  terror,  there  was 
growing  in  the  church  a  larger  conception  of  the 
relation  of  men  to  one  another  and  to  God,  which 
made  way  for  the  admission  of  the  children  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  Christian  church. 

"  Adult  baptism,"  says  Professor  Allen,  "  stood 
for  the  principle  of  individualism,  demanding  in- 
telligence as  the  condition  of  repentance  and  faith 
and  the  personal  vow  of  obedience  as  the  ground 
of  its  proper  administration.  But  the  social  aim 
of  the  church,  looking  to  the  welfare  of  all,  taking 
men  in  their  collective  capacity  as  a  whole,  the 
need  for  an  institution  representing  the  solidarity  of 
the  Christian  world  in  its  common  hope?,  and  fears 
—  this  necessity  influenced  the  transition  from 


THE   MEANING   OF  BAPTISM  251 

adult  to  infant  baptism.  The  principle  of  individ- 
ualism, the  characteristic  of  the  church  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  was  passing  into  desuetude.  The 
church  had  a  work  to  do  for  the  people  which  they 
could  not  do  for  themselves.  The  obligation  of 
humanity  to  the  church  became  universal.  It  was 
to  become  no  longer  a  question  of  '  joining  the 
church,'  as  the  expression  goes  ;  the  union  of  indi- 
viduals no  longer  created  the  church.  The  world 
of  man  wa's  henceforth  to  be  created  within  the 
church  ;  infants  from  their  birth  were  to  be  re- 
ceived into  its  fold.  The  transition  at  least  bore 
witness  to  the  faith  that  all  men  were  capable  of 
receiving  a  divine  nurture,  and  that  education  is 
the  divine  method  of  evoking  the  image  of  God  in 
man."  * 

It  is  this  idea  of  the  solidarity  of  the  generations 
which  finds  expression  in  the  ordinance  of  infant 
baptism.  It  is  the  idea  that  families  ought  to  be 
Christian,  and  not  individuals  merely ;  that  there 
is  an  organic  social  bond  which  Christianity  should 
recognize  and  sanctify.  It  is  the  idea  that  the 
Christian  community  is  one  in  which  the  whole 
household  should  be  included ;  that  it  is  not  a  so- 
ciety which  takes  in  parents  and  leaves  out  their 
little  children. 

In  the  Society  of  Friends  every  one  born  of  par- 
ents belonging  to  the  Society  is  a  birthright  mem- 
ber. That  is  the  idea  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  infant  baptism,  though  it  has  not  been  so  frankly 
1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  407. 


252    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

avowed  as  it  ought  to  have  been.  Is  it  not  true 
that  the  children  of  Christian  parents  should  have 
a  birthright  membership  in  the  Christian  commu- 
nity, —  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  Are  they  not 
heirs  of  the  kingdom?  And  should  not  the  fact 
of  their  inheritance  be  solemnly  recognized  and 
declared  ? 

The  state  recognizes  and  affirms  the  fact  that 
our  children  are  organically  connected  with  it. 
That  parents  should  be  members  of  the  common- 
wealth while  their  children  are  aliens  would  be  an 
intolerable  conception.  The  children  are  not  called 
on  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  citizenship  until  they 
have  attained  to  a  certain  age  ;  but  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  citizenship  are  theirs  from  the  moment 
of  their  birth.  The  youngest  infant  of  either  sex 
in  this  city  is  just  as  much  a  citizen  of  Ohio  and 
of  the  United  States  as  is  Governor  Bushnell  or 
President  McKinley.  The  state  is  thus,  in  every 
theory  of  her  constitution,  in  the  whole  practice 
of  her  administration,  the  mother  of  all  the  chil- 
dren born  within  her  jurisdiction.  Shall  the  church 
be  less  motherly  than  the  state  ? 

This,  I  say,  is  the  real  belief  which  underlies  the 
modern  practice  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  the  belief 
that  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  common- 
wealth ought  to  be  such  that  children  should  be 
recognized  as  forming  a  part  of  it.  For  I  do 
not  think  that  there  is  any  intelligible  theory  of 
infant  baptism  which  does  not  recognize  the  bap- 
tized children  as  members  of  the  Christian  Society, 


THE   MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  253 

just  as  truly  members  as  the  children  are  citizens 
of  the  commonwealth ;  not  yet  fully  entered  into 
all  the  obligations  of  membership,  but  fully  en- 
titled to  all  the  privileges  of  membership.  It  is 
well  that  they  should  be  called  upon,  when  they 
are  old  enough  to  understand  what  it  means,  to 
come  forward  and  assume  for  themselves  these 
obligations  ;  but  let  them  feel  from  their  earliest 
childhood  that  they  are  not  outside  the  fellowship 
of  the  church,  but  within  its  sheltering  arms  and 
under  its  nurturing  care. 

Three  theories  of  infant  baptism  are  now  held 
and  taught :  — 

The  first  is  that  of  the  Roman  Catholics  and 
High  Anglicans,  that  baptism  regenerates  the  soul ; 
that  in  the  rite  of  baptism  a  spiritual  change  is 
wrought,  by  which  original  sin  is  purged  away, 
and  a  Christian  character  is  imparted.  I  will  not 
dwell  on  this  theory,  for  it  is  not  likely  that  any  of 
us  are  inclined  to  believe  it. 

The  second  is  the  theory  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  generally  that  infant  baptism  is  the  seal 
of  a  covenant  made  by  God  with  believers  only ;  a 
promise  that  He  will  be  their  God  and  their  chil- 
dren's God.  In  baptism,  it  is  supposed,  believers 
ratify  that  covenant  and  claim  that  promise,  and 
the  children  of  the  covenant  are  thus  placed  in  a 
more  favorable  condition  and  may  expect  a  greater 
measure  of  God's  favor  than  other  children  not 
thus  consecrated.  The  ordinance,  that  is  to  say, 
while  it  does  not  secure  their  regeneration,  does 


254    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

make  some  change  in  the  relation  which  they  sus- 
tain to  God. 

I  cannot  bring  myself  to  the  acceptance  of  this 
theory.  I  cannot  believe  that  God  cares  any  more 
for  the  baptized  children  than  for  the  unbaptized  ; 
nor  that  this  act  of  its  parents  and  the  church 
changes  in  any  way  his  fatherly  relation  to  any 
little  child. 

The  third  theory  assumes  that  the  fact  of  the 
divine  Fatherhood  is  a  universal  fact ;  that  every 
child  who  is  born  into  this  world  is  God's  child 
when  he  is  born.  This  is  the  fact  which  Jesus 
came  to  reveal,  —  the  one  fundamental  truth  of 
the  Christian  religion.  All  that  any  man  needs  to 
do  in  order  to  secure  his  own  salvation  and  to  fulfill 
his  destiny  is  to  accept  that  fact  and  conform  his 
conduct  to  it.  To  be  filial  and  obedient  children 
of  our  Father  in  heaven  is  to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness. Now  the  rite  of  baptism  simply  declares 
this  fact  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  solemnly 
bears  witness  that  this  child  is  his  child  ;  putting 
upon  him  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  ;  publicly  numbering  him  as  one 
of  that  great  family  which  comprehends  every  fa- 
therhood on  earth  and  in  heaven.  The  rite  does 
not  make  this  child  God's  child  ;  it  simply  recog- 
nizes and  declares  the  fact.  It  does  not  change 
God's  relation  to  the  child  in  any  wise  ;  it  only 
joyfully  confesses  the  relation  which  we  believe  to 
exist  between  God  and  this  child.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  can  more  clearly  present  the  true  signifi- 


THE  MEANING   OF   BAPTISM  255 

cance  of  infant  baptism,  according  to  this  view, 
than  by  quoting  the  words  which  are  spoken  to 
parents  when  they  bring  their  children  to  my  own 
church  to  be  baptized  :  — 

"  In  presenting  these  children  for  baptism  you 
confess  your  faith  in  the  universal  Fatherhood  of 
Him  who  said,  'All  souls  are  mine,'  and  in  the  tender 
care  and  the  redeeming  love  of  Him  who  said,  '  Of 
such  is  the  Kingdom  of  heaven.'  You  bring  them 
to  Him  that  they  may  be  baptized  into  His  name, 
and  declared  to  be  His  children.  You  promise  to 
teach  them,  among  the  earliest  lessons  of  their 
lives,  that  they  are  His  children ;  that  they  owe  to 
Him  the  love  of  their  hearts  and  the  service  of  their 
lives  ;  that  the  beginning  of  wisdom  is  to  trust  Him 
and  obey  Him.  And  you  solemnly  covenant  with 
Him  to-day,  that  not  only  by  the  teaching  of  your 
lips,  but  by  the  holy  influence  of  consecrated  lives 
you  will  seek  to  reveal  to  them  the  mighty  grace 
which  is  able  to  save  us  from  our  sins,  to  comfort 
us  in  our  sorrows,  and  to  bring  us  home  to  God. 
Do  you  thus  promise  ?  " 

Thus  the  rite  is  intended  to  express  and  declare 
the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God ;  the  child's  rela- 
tion to  Him  is  the  fact  which  it  emphasizes.  It 
does  not  create  this  fact ;  it  simply  confesses  and 
declares  it.  The  child's  relation  to  God  is  not 
changed  by  baptism  ;  but  the  parents  and  the 
church  unite  to  acknowledge  this  relation,  and  pro- 
mise to  teach  the  child  to  accept  it  for  himself. 
The  salvation  of  the  child  is  not  assured  by  it ;  for 


256    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

though  he  is  one  of  God's  children,  he  may  be  dis- 
obedient and  rebellious.  The  responsibility  of  the 
parent  to  bring  him  up  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God 
is  not  created  by  this  rite,  for  it  existed  before  ; 
but  it  is  confessed  by  the  parent,  and  witnessed  by 
the  church.  And  the  church,  in  whose  name  this 
is  done,  does  thus  assume  for  itself  a  responsibility 
for  the  child  whose  name  is  thus  written  upon  her 
roll,  to  surround  him  with  good  influences  and  seek 
to  guide  his  feet  into  the  way  of  life. 

Thus,  to  my  mind,  the  rite  of  infant  baptism  is 
the  simple  and  sublime  testimony  to  the  most  mo- 
mentous fact  which  the  human  mind  can  entertain, 
that  every  human  being  is  a  child  of  the  eternal 
Father,  made  to  love  Him,  and  know  Him,  and  trust 
in  Him,  fitted  for  communion  with  Him.  Doubt- 
less these  children  of  ours  inherit  from  us  and  from 
those  who  have  gone  before  us  many  infirmities 
and  evil  tendencies  ;  doubtless  there  are  evil  dispo- 
sitions in  them  that  will  require  the  regenerating 
grace  of  God  ;  but  after  all  the  one  thing  that 
makes  them  precious  is  their  inheritance  of  the 
divine  nature  ;  they  are  God's  children  in  a  deeper 
sense  even  than  they  are  our  children ;  his  image 
is  stamped  on  them,  and  they  are  made  to  grow  up 
in  his  love  and  in  his  likeness.  If  this  is  true  it  is 
the  one  truth  which  means  more  than  every  other ; 
the  one  truth  which  we  ought  to  keep  before  our 
own  minds  and  before  the  minds  of  our  children  in 
all  our  training  of  them  ;  and  the  rite  which  ex- 
presses this  great  truth  respecting  the  divine  par- 


THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  257 

entage  of  our  children  and  the  destiny  to  which 
God's  love  is  calling  them  is  one  which,  I  think, 
ought  to  appeal  to  the  heart  of  every  Christian 
parent. 

"  In  each  such  little  child,"  says  Dean  Stanley, 
"  our  Saviour  saw,  and  we  may  see,  the  promise  of 
a  glorious  future.  In  those  little  hands  folded  in 
unconscious  repose,  in  those  bright  eyes  first  awak- 
ening to  the  outer  world,  in  that  soft  forehead  un- 
furrowed  by  the  ruffle  of  care  or  sin,  He  saw,  and 
we  may  see,  the  undeveloped  rudimental  instru- 
ments of  the  labor  and  intelligence  and  energy  of 
a  whole  life.  And  not  only  so,  —  not  only  in  hope, 
but  in  actual  reality,  does  the  blessing  on  little 
children,  whether  as  expressed  in  the  gospel  story 
or  as  implied  in  infant  baptism,  acknowledge  the 
excellency  and  value  of  the  childlike  soul.  Not 
once  only  in  his  life,  but  again  and  again  he  held 
them  up  to  his  disciples  as  the  best  corrective  of 
the  ambitions  and  passions  of  mankind."  l 

If  such  is  the  significance  of  baptism  when  ad- 
ministered to  an  infant,  what  does  it  signify  when 
administered  to  an  adult  ?  Fundamentally  the 
same  thing.  What  the  child's  parents  declare  re- 
specting their  child,  the  man  declares  for  himself. 
He  has  come  to  recognize  the  solemn  and  momen- 
tous fact  that  he  is  God's  child,  and  he  wishes  to 
confess  that  fact  and  enroll  himself  as  a  member 
of  the  household  of  faith.  I  do  not  know  that 
anything  is  involved  in  adult  baptism  which  is  not 

1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  27. 


258    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

expressed  when  you  say  that  the  man  baptized  ac- 
knowledges and  seeks  to  realize  his  filial  relation  to 
his  Father  in  heaven.  Doubtless  this  must  imply 
penitence  for  past  unfilial  conduct,  trust  in  the 
divine  forgiveness,  and  the  wish  and  purpose  to 
seek  the  divine  inspiration  and  help  in  living  a 
better  life.  And  doubtless  also  in  confessing  the 
universal  Fatherhood,  he  must  acknowledge  the 
human  brotherhood,  and  seek  to  put  himself  into 
brotherly  relations  with  all  men.  It  is  all  summed 
up  when  we  say  that  the  man  who  intelligently 
seeks  Christian  baptism  simply  expresses  by  that 
rite  his  acceptance  of  the  truth  of  the  divine  Fa- 
therhood and  the  human  brotherhood  as  revealed 
to  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  wish  and 
purpose  to  follow  Jesus  Christ  in  conforming  his 
life  to  the  great  truths  thus  revealed. 

But  what  is  the  use  of  the  baptism?  What 
value  has  the  mere  act  of  sprinkling  water  upon 
the  forehead,  with  the  pronunciation  of  a  certain, 
form  of  words  ? 

Of  course  this  external  rite  possesses  no  inherent 
efficacy.  It  is  purely  symbolic.  But  symbols  have 
their  uses.  Some  of  us  care  but  little  for  them ; 
to  others  they  signify  much.  There  is  a  ring  on 
somebody's  finger  that  is  not  worth  very  much 
as  an  article  of  merchandise,  but  that  no  money 
would  buy  because  of  what  it  symbolizes.  There 
are  faded  flowers  somewhere  that  you  would  not 
willingly  part  with ;  they  tell  you  something  that 
you  like  to  hear.  There  are  buttons,  badges,  that 


THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTISM  259 

some  of  us  wear  —  slight  things,  but  very  signifi- 
cant. There  is  that  flag  flying  from  the  dome  over 
yonder.  What  is  it  ?  A  piece  of  weather-beaten 
bunting  ?  It  is  a  symbol,  —  the  symbol  of  our  na- 
tionality. Is  it  not  a  silly  thing,  a  childish  thing, 
for  a  great  nation  to  have  such  a  symbol  ?  Would 
we  not  all  be  just  as  loyal,  just  as  patriotic,  without 
it  ?  No.  That  flag  has  a  great  deal  to  do  in  edu- 
cating, deepening,  intensifying,  the  national  feeling 
of  the  American  people.  Human  beings  are  so 
made  that  their  thought  is  awakened,  their  imagi- 
nation kindled,  their  affection  called  forth  by  the 
use  of  symbols.  The  Founder  of  our  faith  knew 
men  ;  He  knew  that  a  simple  symbolic  rite,  like 
baptism,  would  be  of  great  service  in  gathering  his 
followers  and  building  his  kingdom.  It  has  been 
of  immense  value  in  all  the  past,  and  it  will  be  in 
all  the  future.  It  is  destined  to  mean  a  great  deal 
more  in  the  future  than  it  has  ever  meant  in  the 
past.  When  all  the  superstitions  and  heathenish 
notions  that  have  fastened  upon  it  shall  be  stripped 
away ;  when  it  is  no  longer  associated  in  men's 
minds  with  anything  like  magic  ;  when  it  is  under- 
stood simply  as  the  symbol  of  membership  in  that 
great  household  of  faith  and  love  of  which  the  Fa- 
ther in  heaven  is  the  Head  and  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Elder  Brother,  the  number  of  those  who  claim  it 
for  themselves  and  for  their  children  will  increase 
and  multiply,  until  the  glad  confession  of  the  uni- 
versal Fatherhood  shall  bring  to  the  world  the 
thousand  years  of  peace. 


XIII 

THE   SIGNIFICANCE  OP  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER 

THE  history  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  well  worth  studying.  It  would  be  interest- 
ing, if  it  were  possible  to  go  into  it  carefully,  to 
present  in  picturesque  detail  the  changes  which 
have  taken  place  in  the  theory  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  rite  from  the  earliest  ages  to  the 
latest  times  and  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  Christendom.  That  would  make  a  lively  story. 
The  notions  entertained  have  been  so  manifold  and 
curious,  the  usages  followed  so  quaint  and  various, 
that  the  narrative  would  afford  a  great  deal  of  di- 
version and  not  a  little  instruction.  One  is  hardly 
prepared  to  estimate  rightly  the  forms  and  institu- 
tions of  our  common  Christianity  until  he  has 
traced  their  development  through  all  its  historical 
stages.  It  is,  however,  but  a  few  glimpses  that  we 
shall  get  of  this  remarkable  evolution  ;  those  who 
desire  a  graphic  account  of  it  will  find  it  in  Dean 
Stanley's  volume  entitled  "  Christian  Institutions." 

We  have  the  story  of  the  first  celebration  of  the 
Supper  in  each  of  the  first  three  Gospels ;  the  nar- 
rative in  John  tells  us  of  a  last  Supper  of  our  Lord 
with  the  twelve,  but  gives  no  hint  of  any  emblem- 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    261 

atic  or  sacramental  character .  In  Mark's  Gospel 
we  read  that  the  Master  and  his  disciples  partook 
of  the  passover  feast  together  in  an  upper  chamber 
in  Jerusalem  ;  "  and  as  they  were  eating,  he  took 
bread,  and  when  he  had  blessed  he  brake  it  and 
gave  to  them,  and  said,  Take  ye ;  this  is  my  body. 
And  he  took  a  cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks 
he  gave  to  them,  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And 
he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant which  is  shed  for  many."  Matthew  adds  to 
this  last  phrase  the  words  "  unto  remission  of  sins." 
Luke  adds  the  injunction,  "  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me."  It  is  a  little  strange  that  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  both  omit  this  memorial  feature. 
Neither  of  the  first  two  Gospels  gives  us  any  hint 
of  any  future  observance  of  the  Supper.  In  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  Paul,  in  a  more 
elaborate  account  of  the  first  Supper,  represents 
the  Lord  as  thrice  repeating  the  idea  that  the  sup- 
per was  to  be  eaten  in  remembrance  of  him,  "  to 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come."  Un- 
doubtedly Luke,  who  was  a  traveling  companion 
of  Paul,  reflects  in  his  Gospel  Paul's  understand- 
ing of  the  ordinance. 

As  to  the  manner  of  its  first  observance  we  have 
ample  sources  of  information.  Stanley's  descrip- 
tion brings  the  scene  clearly  before  us  :  — 

"  It  was  the  evening  feast,  of  which  every  Jew- 
ish household  partook  on  the  night,  as  it  might  be, 
before  or  after  the  Passover.  They  were  collected 
together,  the  Master  and  his  twelve  disciples,  in 


262    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

one  of  the  large  upper  rooms  above  the  open  court 
of  the  inn  or  caravanserai  to  which  they  had  been 
guided.  The  couches  or  mats  were  spread  round 
the  room,  as  in  all  Eastern  houses  ;  and  on1  those 
the  guests  lay  reclined,  three  on  each  couch,  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  derived  from  the  universal 
usage  of  the  Greek  or  Roman  world.  The  ancient 
Jewish  usage  of  eating  the  Passover  standing  had 
given  way,  and  a  symbolical  meaning  was  given  to 
what  was  in  fact  a  more  social  fashion,  that  they 
might  lie  there  like  kings,  with  the  ease  becoming 
free  men. 

"  There  they  lay,  the  Lord  in  the  midst,  next  to 
him  the  beloved  disciple,  and  next  to  him  the  eldest, 
Peter.  Of  the  position  of  the  others  we  know  no- 
thing. There  was  placed  on  the  table,  in  front  of 
the  guests,  one,  two,  perhaps  four  cups  or  rather 
bowls.  There  is  at  Genoa  a  bowl  which  professes 
to  be  the  original  chalice,  —  a  mere  fancy,  no  doubt, 
—  but  probably  representing  the  original  shape. 
This  bowl  was  filled  with  wine  mixed  up  with  wa- 
ter. The  wine  of  old  times  was  always  mixed  with 
water.*.  .  .  Beside  the  cup  was  one  or  more  of  the 
large  thin  Passover  cakes  of  unleavened  bread, 
such  as  may  still,  at  the  Paschal  season,  be  seen  in 
all  Jewish  houses.  It  is  this  of  which  the  outward 
form  has  been  preserved  in  the  thin  round  wafer 
which  is  used  in  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
churches.  It  was  the  recollection  of  the  unleav- 
ened bread  of  the  Israelites  when  they  left  Egypt. 
As  the  wine  was  mixed  with  water,  so  the  bread 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    263 

was  probably  served  up  with  fish.  The  two  always 
went  together.  We  see  examples  of  it  in  the  ear- 
lier meals  in  the  Gospel,  and  so  doubtless  it  was  in' 
this  last.  Close  beside  this  cake  was  another  re- 
collection of  the  Passover,  —  a  thick  sop,  which 
was  supposed  tcj  be  like  the  Egyptian  clay  and  in 
which  the  fragments  of  the  Paschal  cake  were 
dipped.  Round  the  table,  leaning  on  each  other's 
breasts,  reclining  on  those  couches,  were  the  twelve 
disciples  and  their  Master.  From  mouth  to  mouth 
passed  to  and  fro  the  eager  inquiry  and  the  startled 
look  when  they  heard  that  one  of  them  should  be- 
tray him.  Across  the  table  and  from  side  to  side 
were  shot  the  earnest  questions  from  Peter,  from 
Jude,  from  Thomas,  from  Philip.  In  each  face 
might  have  been  traced  the  character  of  each  re- 
ceiving a  different  impression  from  what  he  saw 
and  heard  —  and  in  the  midst  of  all  this  the  ma- 
jestic, sorrowful  countenance  of  the  Master  of  the 
Feast  as  he  drew  toward  him  the  several  cups  and 
the  thin  transparent  cake,  and  pronounced  over 
each  the  Jewish  blessing  with  those  few  words 
which  have  become  immortal."  1 

Such  was  the  scene  in  the  upper  chamber.  It 
was  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  — 
the  last  night  of  his  life  on  the  earth.  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  incidents  of  this  Supper  made  a 
deep  impression  upon  his  disciples  ?  Even  if  he 
had  laid  no  commands  on  them,  it  would  have  been 
very  natural  for  them  to  commemorate  in  some 

1  Christian  Institutions,  pp.  35,  36. 


264    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

way  an  event  so  full  of  tender  significance.  And 
it  seems  clear  that  some  such  commemoration  was 
observed  by  them  very  soon  after  his  death.  The 
character  of  this  observance  was  not,  however,  at 
the  beginning  anything  like  what  we  now  know  as 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.  It.  began  in  an 
institution  known  as  the  Agape  or  Love-Feast. 
The  disciples  were  wont,  in  the  earliest  days,  to 
come  together,  as  many  of  them  as  could  every 
evening,  for  their  ordinary  evening  meal.  Very 
strong  was  the  feeling  among  them  that  they  were 
one  family ;  they  made  that  fact  manifest  in  all 
their  social  relations.  That  there  was  a  thoroughly 
organized  communism  may  be  doubted,  but  the 
spirit  was  there  that  made  all  things  common. 
When  there  were  too  many  of  them  to  meet  in  one 
assembly  they  came  together  evening  after  evening 
in  little  groups,  —  neighborhood  sociables,  we  might 
almost  call  them,  —  and  had  their  supper  together. 
Always  at  these  suppers  the  broken  bread  and  the 
common  cup  commemorated  the  crucified  and  risen 
Lord.  Every  such  social  supper  was  a  Lord's 
Supper.  The  distinction  between  the  sacred  and 
the  secular  was  obliterated.  There  was  no  special 
sacramental  service,  such  as  we  now  celebrate. 

Paul  gives  us,  in  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, the  reason  why  the  service  which  we  now  re- 
gard as  sacramental  was  separated  from  the  social 
feast.  Abuses  had  crept  into  this  common  obser- 
vance. The  disciples  were  hardly  spiritual  enough 
to  keep  this  celebration  up  to  the  high-water  mark 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER    265 

at  which  it  originated.  They  began  to  use  it  as  an 
occasion  of  feasting ;  and  instead  of  emphasizing 
the  common  life  of  the  brotherhood,  it  gave  oppor- 
tunity for  selfish  greediness  and  coarse  disregard 
for  the  feelings  and  the  rights  of  others.  Those 
who  came  early  ate  up  all  the  provision,  even  gor- 
ging themselves,  so  that  those  who  came  late  had 
nothing  left.  This  state  of  things  Paul  sharply 
reproves.  "  When  therefore  ye  assemble  your- 
selves together,"  he  says,  "  it  is  not  possible  to  eat 
the  Lord's  Supper  ;  for  in  your  eating  each  one 
taketh  before  other  his  own  supper ;  and  one  is 
hungry  and  another  is  drunken.  What?  have  ye 
not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye 
the  church  of  God  and  put  to  shame  them  that 
have  not?  What  shall  I  say  unto  you?  Shall  I 
praise  you  in  this  ?  I  praise  you  not.  .  .  .  Where- 
fore, my  brethren,  when  ye  come  together  to  eat, 
wait  one  for  another.  If  any  man  is  hungry  let 
him  eat  at  home,  that  your  coming  together  be  not 
unto  judgment."  1 

For  such  reasons  the  sacramental  and  the  social 
gatherings  gradually  fell  apart,  and  while  the  love- 
feasts  were  maintained  for  several  centuries  —  in 
some  portions  of  the  church  longer  than  in  other 
portions  —  the  Lord's  Supper  was  finally  separated 
from  them,  and  became  a  strictly  religious  cere- 
mony, gradually  taking  upon  itself  a  character 
quite  different  from  that  which  was  given  to  it  in 
the  apostolic  days.  Some  of  these  changes  will  be 
indicated  in  the  briefest  manner. 
1  1  Cor.  xi. 


266    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

The  posture  of  the  disciples  at  the  first  supper 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  reclining  posture.  No- 
where in  the  world  is  this  form  now  observed.  In 
some  churches  the  communicants  receive  the  sacra- 
ment standing,  in  some  sitting,  in  some  kneeling ; 
while  the  Pope,  for  his  part,  because  of  a  long  dis- 
pute as  to  what  his  attitude  should  be,  has  appar- 
ently adopted  one  which  is  slightly  ambiguous,  and 
leans  upon  his  chair  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it 
difficult  for  onlookers  to  determine  whether  he  is 
sitting  or  standing.  If  form  or  mode  is  an  essential 
element  of  a  sacrament,  I  see  not  why  the  form 
or  mode  is  not  as  important  in  the  one  sacrament 
as  in  the  other  ;  and  if  the  example  of  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  is  to  be  strictly  followed,  nobody 
in  the  world  is  properly  observing  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  presume  that  we  shall  ad- 
mit that  the  posture  is  not  a  vital  matter ;  that  the 
sacrament  may  be  just  as  profitably  administered 
in  another  mode  than  that  followed  by  our  Lord 
and  the  twelve,  —  to  those  who  are  standing,  or 
kneeling,  or  sitting,  as  religiously  as  to  those  who 
are  lying  down. 

The  time  of  the  observance  has  also  been 
changed,  nearly  or  quite  universally.  It  was  ori- 
ginally, as  we  have  seen,  coupled  with  the  evening 
meal ;  and  the  name  of  the  Supper  still  clings 
to  it  in  our  usage  —  still  more  closely  in  the  Ger- 
man name  of  Abendmahl.  In  the  second  century, 
however,  for  various  prudential  reasons  it  was 
changed  to  an  early  morning  hour ;  and  now 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    267 

throughout  the  world  this  is  the  ordinary  obser- 
vance. Some  of  those  who  make  most  of  it  put 
great  emphasis  on  the  necessity  of  early  commun- 
ion, and  think  that  it  is  not  properly  adminis- 
tered at  any  other  time  of  the  day. 

The  form  of  the  bread  in  the  ancient  church  was 
that  of  flat  circular  cakes,  such  as  we  may  see  in 
Jewish  homes  about  Easter  time.  Some  of  the 
churches,  stickling  for  small  things,  have  tried  to 
preserve  this  form.  But  "  it  is  evident,"  as  Dean 
Stanley  says,  "  that  the  Roman  and  Lutheran 
churches,  by  adhering  to  the  literal  form  of  the  old 
institution,  have  lost  its  meaning;  and  the  Reformed 
churches,  whilst  certainly  departing  from  the  origi- 
nal form,  have  preserved  the  meaning.  The  bread 
of  common  life,  which  was  in  the  first  three  centu- 
ries represented  by  the  thin  unleavened  cake,  is 
now  represented  by  the  ordinary  loaf."  J 

Both  bread  and  wine  were  originally  given  to  all 
the  communicants.  For  certain  reasons  the  cup 
was  withheld  from  the  laity,  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  the  dispute  over  this  question  between 
Catholics  and  Reformers  resulted  in  bloody  wars. 
In  this  quarrel  neither  side  can  be  wholly  justified. 
The  withholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity  was  the 
result  of  a  fear  lest  the  consecrated  wine,  which 
had  been  transformed  into  the  blood  of  the  Re- 
deemer, might  be  spilled  on  the  ground.  That 
seems  to  us  a  superstitious  fear.  But  the  Catholic 
doctrine  was  that  the  real  presence  of  the  Saviour 

1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  53. 


268     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

was  in  either  of  the  consecrated  elements ;  and  that 
a  communicant  who  had  partaken  of  one  of  them 
had  received  all  the  grace  that  the  sacrament  could 
impart.  This  was,  in  effect,  saying  that  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacrament  was  not  dependent  on  the 
material  elements,  which  was,  in  one  sense,  a 
broader  and  more  spiritual  view  than  that  of  the 
Reformers.  "  When  the  Bohemian  Utraquists," 
says  Dean  Stanley,  "  fought  with  desperate  energy 
to  recover  the  use  of  the  cup,  they  were  in  one  sense 
doubtless  fighting  the  cause  of  the  laity  against  the 
clergy,  of  old  Catholic  latitude  against  modern  Ro- 
man restrictions.  But  with  that  obliquity  of  pur- 
pose which  sometimes  characterizes  the  fiercest 
ecclesiastical  struggles,  the  Roman  Church,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  fighting  the  battle  of  an  enlarged 
and  liberal  view  of  the  sacraments  against  a  fanat- 
ical insistence  on  the  necessity  of  a  detailed  con- 
formity to  ancient  usage."1 

There  was  small  reason,  however,  for  sympathy 
for  either  party.  The  superstition  of  the  one  side 
matched  the  narrowness  of  the  other.  The  Bohe- 
mian reformers  won  a  temporary  victory,  and  car- 
ried the  communion  cup  on  a  pole,  as  the  banner 
of  their  triumphant  legions  ;  but  their  triumph  was 
of  short  duration  ;  the  thing  they  had  fought  for 
was  not  worth  winning,  and  they  soon  relapsed  into 
abject  conformity  to  the  old  ritual. 

Later  Reformers,  however,  restored  the  use  of 
the  cup ;  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  alone  with- 
1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  104. 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  LORD'S   SUPPER    269 

holds  it  from  the  laity.  In  the  Greek  Church  the 
bread  and  wine  are  mingled,  and  administered  to 
communicants  with  a  spoon. 

One  usage  in  connection  with  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  universal  in  the  ancient  church,  and  per- 
sisted until  the  thirteenth  century,  but  has  now 
nearly  disappeared  from  Christendom.  This  was 
the  holy  kiss,  the  kiss  of  peace  —  which  is  fre- 
quently enjoined  in  the  Epistles.  At  the  moment 
when  the  words  of  the  service  known  as  the  "  Sur- 
sum  Corda  "  were  spoken,  — 

"  Lift  up  your  hearts  ! 
We  lift  them  up  unto  the  Lord,"  ^- 

the  whole  congregation  exchanged  this  salutation. 
"  Sometimes,"  says  Stanley,  "  the  men  kissed  the 
men ;  sometimes  the  women  the  women  ;  sometimes 
it  was  without  distinction."  It  was,  I  believe, 
finally  decreed  that  kissing  should  be  restricted  to 
those  of  the  same  sex.  In  the  thirteenth  century 
this  observance  was  greatly  modified.  A  small 
tablet  of  wood,  called  the  pax  or  pax  board,  on 
which  was  engraved  some  scriptural  scene  or  sym- 
bol, was  introduced  into  the  service ;  this  was 
kissed  by  the  officiating  priest  at  the  proper  time, 
then  handed  by  the  acolytes  to  the  other  clergy  to 
be  kissed  by  them,  and  then  passed  through  the 
congregation  for  the  same  purpose.  The  kiss  of 
peace  had  been  the  symbol  of  fraternity ;  the  kiss- 
ing of  the  pax  was  the  symbol  of  a  symbol.  This 
wooden  substitute  does  not  seem  to  have  been  very 
popular,  and  soon  fell  into  desuetude. 


Among  the  Coptic  Christians  the  kiss  of  peace 
is  still  part  of  the  communion  service.  "  Travel- 
ers now  living,"  says  Dean  Stanley,  "  have  had 
their  faces  stroked  and  been  kissed  by  the  Coptic 
priest,  in  the  cathedral  at  Cairo,  whilst  at  the  same 
moment  everybody  was  kissing  everybody  else 
throughout  the  church.  Had  any  primitive  Chris- 
tians been  told  that  the  time  would  come  when 
this,  the  very  sign  of  brotherhood  and  sisterhood, 
would  be  absolutely  proscribed  in  the  Christian 
church,  they  would  have  thought  that  this  must  be 
the  sign  of  unprecedented  persecution  or  unprece- 
dented unbelief.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  the 
omission  of  any  act  more  sacred,  more  significant, 
more  necessary  (according  to  the  view  which  then 
prevailed),  to  the  edification  of  the  service."  J  In 
the  Western  church,  one  small  Scottish  sect,  the 
Glassites  or  Sandemanians,  —  to  which,  by  the 
way,  the  illustrious  Faraday  belonged,  —  still  ob- 
serves this  rite.  This  sect  also  keeps  the  ancient 
love-feast  and  practices  feet-washing,  like  the  Tun- 
kers  of  America. 

About  the  same  time  that  infant  baptism  began 
to  be  practiced,  the  administration  of  the  com- 
munion to  infants  was  also  introduced  into  the 
early  church.  Doubtless  the  same  idea  at  that 
time  underlay  both  usages,  —  the  idea  that  the 
sacrament  possessed  some  inherent  or  magical 
power.  Baptism  regenerated  the  child ;  the  Lord's 
Supper  also  imparted  spiritual  life  and  vigor  to 
1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  63. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    271 

him.  The  infant  in  both  cases  was  unconscious ; 
the  sacrament  produced  its  effect  upon  him  with- 
out any  cooperation  of  his  intelligence  or  his  will. 
It  is  what  is  called  an  opus  operatum ;  it  did  its 
work  upon  the  soul  in  just  the  same  way  that  food 
or  medicine  does  its  work  upon  the  body.  I  do  not 
quite  understand  why  infant  communion  has  been 
abandoned  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  the 
Greek  Church  still  practices  it.  Those  who  believe 
that  infant  baptism  signifies  the  parents'  belief  in 
the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  is  the  enroll- 
ment of  the  child  by  name  in  that  household  of 
faith  to  which  by  birth  he  belongs,  have  good  rea- 
son for  continuing  this  practice,  although  they  may 
not  believe  that  any  change  whatever  is  made  by 
it  in  the  character  of  the  child ;  but  infant  com- 
munion could  not  of  course  be  practiced  unless  it 
were  believed  that  the  rite  possesses  some  inhe- 
rent power  of  changing  the  child's  nature.  If  it 
does  possess  that  power,  there  is  no  good  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  administered  to  infants  as 
well  as  to  adults. 

The  Supper,  as  observed  by  the  first  disciples, 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  simple  evening  meal,  at 
which  the  bread  as  broken  by  our  Lord,  and  the  wine 
as  poured  forth  by  him,  reminded  the  partakers  of 
his  human  life  among  them,  and  his  death  of  self- 
sacrifice  for  them.  But  when  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  separated  from  the  love-feast  and  erected  into 
a  special  ecclesiastical  service,  other  and  higher 
meanings  began  to  be  attributed  to  it.  "  As  early 


272    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

as  the  second  century,"  says  one  authority,  "  Justin 
Martyr  and  Irenaeus  advance  the  opinion  that  the 
mere  bread  and  wine  became,  in  the  Eucharist,  some- 
thing higher,  —  the  earthly  something  heavenly,  — 
without,  however,  ceasing  to  be  bread  and  wine. 
Though  these  views  were  opposed  by  some  emi- 
nent individual  Christian  teachers,  .  .  .  yet,  both 
among  the  people  and  in  the  ritual  of  the  church, 
more  particularly  after  the  fourth  century,  the 
miraculous  or  supernatural  view  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  gained  ground.  After  the  third  century 
the  office  of  presenting  the  bread  and  wine  came 
to  be  confined  to  the  ministers  or  priests.  This 
practice  arose  from,  and  in  turn  strengthened,  the 
notion  which  was  gaining  ground,  that  in  this  act 
of  presentation  by  the  priest  a  sacrifice  similar  to 
that  once  offered  up  in  the  death  of  Christ,  though 
bloodless,  was  ever  anew  presented  to  God.  This 
still  deepened  the  feeling  of  mysterious  significance 
and  importance  with  which  the  rite  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  viewed,  and  led  to  that  gradually 
increasing  splendor  of  celebration  which,  under 
Gregory  the  Great  (590),  took  the  form  of  the 
mass." 

Out  of  this  gradually  grew  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  —  the  belief  that  under  the  hands 
of  the  consecrating  priest  the  bread  and  wine  of 
the  sacrament  become  the  actual  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  This  is  the  doctrine  to-day  of  both  the 
Roman  and  the  Greek  Catholic  churches. 

At  the  time   of  the  Reformation  this  doctrine 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    273 

furnished  one  of  the  battle-grounds  of  the  Reform- 
ers,  who  not  only  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine,  but  differed  widely  among  themselves. 

Luther,  for  his  part,  was  rather  conservative  in 
his  views  of  this  sacrament.  He  rejected  transub- 
stantiation,  but  substituted  for  it  what  the  theo- 
logians call  cow-substantiation,  what  he  called  im- 
panation.  He  denied  that  the  bread  and  wine  of 
the  sacrament  do  themselves  become  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ;  but  he  maintained  that  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  actually  there,  where 
the  bread  and  wine  are,  in,  with,  and  under  it.  The 
bread  and  wine  are  still  bread  and  wine  ;  no  magi- 
cal change  has  passed  upon  them  ;  but  just  as  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ  was  present  with  his  human 
nature,  so  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
present  with  the  bread  and  the  wine. 

Zwingli,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained  that  the 
rite  was  purely  symbolic ;  that  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  "  This  is  my  body,"  "  This  is  my  blood," 
meant  only,  "  This  represents  my  body  and  my 
blood  "  —  that  the  service  was  simply  commemo- 
rative. 

Calvin  undertook  to  maintain  a  view  midway 
between  these  two,  —  that  the  bread  and  wine  are 
in  themselves  mere  symbols  ;  but  that  at  the  mo- 
ment of  partaking  of  them  the  faithful  are  brought 
into  a  real  spiritual  union  with  Christ  and  receive 
divine  grace  immediately  from  him  ;  that  the  sup- 
per is  a  medium  through  which  grace  is  imparted 
to  the  believing  soul. 


274    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

Such  are  the  three  principal  explanations  of  the 
nature  of  this  sacrament.  In  the  Roman  Catholic 
view,  a  miraculous  or  supernatural  transformation 
of  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  takes  place  when  the  ele- 
ments are  consecrated ;  and  thus  the  priest  offers 
upon  the  altar  a  real  sacrifice  —  the  unbloody  sac- 
rifice—  to  God,  by  which  his  favor  is  secured. 
These  miraculously  transformed  elements  also  pos- 
sess in  themselves  efficacy,  by  which  the  moral  and 
spiritual  health  and  strength  of  those  partaking  of 
them  is  increased.  The  question  respecting  the 
attitude  of  the  recipient  is  one  with  which  the 
Roman  Catholic  theologians  do  not  always  deal 
satisfactorily.  But  I  think  that  I  may  say  that 
the  Catholic  doctrine  teaches  that  any  baptized 
person  who  is  not  in  mortal  sin  receives  some  bene- 
fit from  the  sacrament  if  he  simply  does  not  resist 
its  influence ;  if  he  is  acquiescent  when  he  partakes 
of  it.  The  sacrament,  by  an  energy  of  grace  which 
is  inherent  in  it,  will  impart  benefit  to  him  if  he 
does  not  counteract  it  by  his  will.  Of  course  it 
is  taught  that  the  more  perfectly  responsive  he  is 
to  its  action,  the  more  good  it  will  do  him:  but 
even  to  those  who  are  passively  acquiescent  it  will 
communicate  some  grace.  There  is  an  efficacious 
power  in  the  sacrament  itself  which  does  not  de- 
pend on  the  exercise  of  faith  by  the  recipient. 

I  do  not  state  this  theory  to  controvert  it :  for  it 
is  probable  that  few  of  my  readers  believe  in  the 
miracle  of  the  mass,  or  regard  the  sacrament  as  pos- 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER    275 

sessing  any  such  inherent  power  to  change  charac- 
ter ;  though  there  are  those  among  our  Episcopal 
brethren  whose  theory  of  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments approximates  to  the  Roman  Catholic  theory. 

To  most  of  us  the  sacrament  is  a  symbolical 
rather  than  a  literal  transaction ;  a  memorial  and 
not  a  miracle ;  supernatural  only  as  everything 
spiritual  is  supernatural. 

Let  us  see  if  we  can  state,  with  some  carefulness, 
just  what  this  sacrament  does  signify  to  you  and 
me. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  memorial  of  One  very 
dear  to  us,  —  One  to  whom  we  owe  more  than  to 
any  one  else  who  has  ever  lived  upon  the  earth. 
We  think  it  well  to  cherish  the  memory  of  great 
benefactors ;  surely  here  is  One  who  has  done  more 
for  this  world  than  any  other  born  of  woman.  It 
was  Theodore  Parker  who  apostrophized  him  in 
the  words  :  "  O  thou  Great  Friend  to  all  the  sons 
of  men !  "  I  am  speaking  as  a  student  of  history 
when  I  say  that  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
have  meant  more  for  good  to  this  world  than 
any  other  event  which  has  happened  upon  this 
planet.  It  must  be  well  for  us  to  recall,  now  and 
then,  with  some  care  and  seriousness,  an  event  like 
this  and  to  spend  a  little  time  in  reflecting  upon  it. 

The  question  of  the  frequency  of  such  obser- 
vances is  one  of  expediency.  I  own  that  I  find  my- 
self rather  inclining,  of  late  years,  to  the  Scottish 
idea  that  a  less  frequent  observance  would  be  more 
salutary.  If  we  had  the  sacrament  three  times 


276    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

a  year  instead  of  six,  —  on  the  first  of  February, 
the  first  of  June,  and  the  first  of  October,  say,  — 
and  then  admitted  members  not  merely  on  com- 
munion Sundays,  but  on  the  first  Sunday  of  every 
month,  —  my  belief  is  that  we  should  gain  more 
than  we  should  lose  in  impression  and  benefit 
from  the  celebration. 

This  is,  however,  a  subordinate  matter.  The 
value  of  such  a  commemorative  service  to  any  one 
who  rightly  uses  it  cannot,  I  think,  be  questioned. 
It  must  be  profitable  for  us  to  recall,  as  we  sit  be- 
fore this  table,  the  life  of  this  Great  Friend  of 
ours,  the  words  of  wisdom  and  gentleness  that  he 
spoke,  the  great  truths  that  he  made  plain  to  us, 
the  gracious  ministry  of  help  and  healing  and  sym- 
pathy to  which  his  life  was  given,  the  patience 
with  which  he  bore  the  spite  and  scorn  and  violence 
of  the  brutal  men  whom  he  sought  to  bless,  the 
unresisting  meekness  with  which  he  went  to  death, 
conquering  hate  by  enduring  it,  and  winning  in  his 
death  the  contrite  love  of  the  men  who  slew  him. 
To  spend  an  hour,  now  and  then,  in  simply  recall- 
ing all  that  we  know  about  him,  in  meditating 
upon  this  character,  in  comparing  our  own  habitual 
thinking  and  living  with  this  standard,  must  be  a 
profitable  exercise  for  every  one  of  us. 

Besides,  there  is  a  certain  relation  to  ourselves 
which  this  suffering  life  sustains  which  we  must 
not  ignore.  We  are  contemplating  a  vicarious  sac- 
rifice —  not  a  vicarious  punishment,  which  is  a  very 
different  thing.  The  sacrifice  which  a  mother 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER    277 

makes  for  her  child  is  a  vicarious  sacrifice  ;  she 
suffers  for  him,  on  his  behalf,  but  she  is  not  pun- 
ished in  his  stead.  The  central  fact  of  the  Incar- 
nation is  the  identification  of  Christ  with  human- 
ity. The  Son  of  God  he  was,  in  the  highest  sense, 
and  he  was  also  the  Son  of  man.  All  that  he  did 
and  suffered  was  for  us  men,  not  penally  in  our 
stead,  but  vicariously  in  our  behalf.  It  was  his 
great  love  for  humankind  that  made  him  do  what 
he  did  and  bear  what  he  endured  ;  we  are,  whether 
we  acknowledge  him  or  not,  the  beneficiaries  of  his 
self-sacrificing  love.  The  world  we  live  in  is  a 
vastly  different  world  from  what  it  would  have 
been  if  he  had  not  lived  and  died  in  it ;  and  it 
must  be  impossible  for  us  to  reflect  on  all  this  with- 
out being  touched  with  a  sense  of  our  deep  indebt- 
edness to  him. 

But  there  is  something  more  than  memory,  some- 
thing deeper  than  gratitude,  in  the  heart  of  him 
who  worthily  observes  this  ordinance.  When  it  is 
all  that  it  ought  to  be,  it  becomes  —  what  we  com- 
monly call  it  —  a  communion,  —  KOIVWVIO..  And  a 
communion  is  simply  a  fellowship.  The  deepest 
purpose  of  the  sacrament  is  not  only  to  help  us  to 
think  about  him,  and  to  be  grateful  to  him,  but 
also  to  bring  us  into  vital,  spiritual  fellowship  with 
him,  so  that  we  shall  have  his  mind  in  us,  and  be 
partakers  of  his  nature  ;  so  that  his  life  shall  be 
„  reproduced  in  our  lives,  and  we  shall  in  some  mea- 
sure learn  to  see  the  world  with  his  eyes,  to  think 
as  he  thought,  and  to  feel  as  he  felt,  and  to  act  as 


278    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

he  acted.  This  is  the  real  significance  of  the  sym- 
bolism of  the  Supper.  The  bread  and  wine  repre- 
sent the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ ;  his  body  is 
his  personality,  and  the  blood  is  the  vital  element 
of  it,  which  is  love.  Now  just  as  the  bread  and 
the  wine  of  which  we  partake  are  taken  up  by  the 
organs  of  digestion  and  assimilation,  and  become 
part  of  ourselves,  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our 
flesh,  so  by  our  thought  and  our  love  the  spiritual 
elements  of  Christ's  personality,  his  thought  and 
his  love,  become  part  of  us  ;  we  become  partakers 
of  his  life,  of  his  nature.  There  is  nothing  miracu- 
lous about  this  ;  it  is  precisely  the  same  thing  that 
happens  to  us  when  we  are  brought  into  living  sym- 
pathy with  any  strong,  wise,  loving  human  spirit. 
Something  of  his  strength  and  wisdom  and  love 
passes  into  our  spirits,  and  becomes  part  of  our- 
selves. And  precisely  thus  in  our  communion  with 
the  spiritual  Christ  do  we  become  partakers  of  his 
life. 

"  Christ  is  present  in  the  elements,"  says  Presi- 
dent Hyde,  "  just  as  the  writer  of  a  letter  is  pre- 
sent in  the  writing.  The  reading  of  the  letter  is 
the  reception  of  the  writer's  mind  and  heart.  We 
receive  Christ  in  the  bread  and  wine  just  as  we  re- 
ceive a  friend  when  we  clasp  his  hand.  All  com- 
munion between  persons  must  be  by  symbols.  As 
Professor  Dewey  says  in  his  '  Psychology,'  '  The 
first  step  in  the  communication  of  a  fact  of  individ- 
ual consciousness  is  changing  it  from  a  psychical 
fact  to  a  physical  fact.  It  must  be  expressed 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER    279 

through  non-conscious  media,  the  appearance  of 
the  face  or  the  use  of  sounds.  These  are  purely 
external.  The  next  step  is  for  some  other  individ- 
ual to  translate  this  expression  or  these  sounds 
into  his  own  consciousness.  He  must  make  them 
part  of  himself  before  he  knows  what  they  are. 
One  individual  never  knows  directly  what  is  in  the 
self  of  another ;  he  knows  it  only  so  far  as  he  is 
able  to  reproduce  it  in  his  own  self.' 

"  Jesus  in  instituting1  the  Lord's  Supper  has 
simply  made  universal  the  communication  of  his 
sacrificial  love.  He  has  made  the  bread  and  wine 
forever,  and  to  all  who  receive  it,  the  symbol  of  the 
life  he  lived  and  the  death  he  suffered  in  love  to 
all  mankind.  In  itself,  it  is  mere  bread  and  wine. 
Translated  by  the  intelligent  and  devout  recipient 
into  terms  of  the  love  and  sacrifice  it  is  intended 
to  express,  it  becomes  the  bread  of  life  and  the  wine 
of  love  to  as  many  as  receive  it  in  this  faith.  Be- 
ing an  objective  institution,  coming  at  stated  times 
and  places,  it  is  independent  of  the  wayward 
caprice,  the  fickle  mood,  the  listless  mind  of  the 
individual.  And  so  it  calls  us  back  from  our 
worldliness,  deepens  our  penitence,  quickens  our 
love,  and  intensifies  our  consecration  ;  and,  above 
all,  identifies  us  with  the  great  company  of  our 
fellow  Christians,  as  no  mere  subjective  devotion 
and  private  prayer  could  ever  do."  1 

1  Outlines  of  Social  Theology,  pp.  194-196. 


XIV 

THE  HOPE   OF  IMMORTALITY 

"  IF  a  man  die,"  said  Job  mournfully,  "  shall  he 
live  again  ?  "  It  is  the  question  of  the  ages.  Who 
can  confidently  answer  it  ?  What  assurance  have 
we  of  the  fullness  of  life  beyond  the  grave  ?  As 
for  Job  he  had  none.  His  question  implies  a  neg- 
ative answer.  Doubtless  he  believed  in  some  dim, 
shadowy,  slumberous  existence  beyond  the  grave, 
but  it  was  nothing  that  we  could  call  life.  The 
conception  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  was  substan- 
tially the  same  as  that  of  the  Homeric  poems. 
"  Homer,"  says  Dr.  Gordon,  "  contemplates  death 
as  a  calamity ;  with  him,  life  after  death  is  a  help- 
less existence  in  the  regions  of  murky  gloom."  In 
the  Odyssey,  Homer  tells  us  of  the  visit  of  Odys- 
seus to  the  underworld  and  of  his  sorrow  as  he 
greeted  there  the  "  strengthless  dead  "  whom  he 
had  known  in  life.  Agamemnon  came  forth  to 
meet  Odysseus ;  he  knew  him  instantly,  "  and  he 
cried  aloud,  and  let  the  big  tears  fall,  and  stretched 
forth  his  hand  eagerly  to  grasp  me.  But  no,  there 
was  no  strength  nor  vigor  left,  such  as  was  once 
within  his  supple  limbs.  I  wept  to  see  him,  and  I 
pitied  him  from  my  heart."  "  Mock  not  at  death," 


THE   HOPE   OF  IMMORTALITY  281 

says  the  spirit  of  Achilles  to  Odysseus.  "  Better 
to  be  the  hireling  of  a  stranger,  and  serve  a  man 
of  mean  estate  whose  living  is  small,  than  be  the 
ruler  over  all  these  dead  and  gone."  The  Hebrew 
poet  puts  the  case  more  tersely  when  he  says :  "  A 
living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion."  These  an- 
cients held  to  some  continuance  of  being  after 
death,  but  it  was  only  the  ghostly  simulacrum  of 
life  for  which  they  looked. 

You  may  be  thinking  of  those  often  quoted  words 
of  Job  :  "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  and 
that  he  shall  stand  at  the  latter  day  upon  the  earth, 
and  though  after  my  skin  worms  destroy  this  body, 
yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God."  It  is  doubtful 
whether  there  is  another  text  in  the  Bible  which 
has  been  worse  misused  than  this  one.  Transla- 
tors have  read  their  own  meanings  into  it,  instead 
of  trying  to  reproduce  the  thought  of  Job.  Job 
has  been  grossly  accused  by  his  three  friends : 
they  have  insisted  that  his  calamities  are  punish- 
ments inflicted  upon  him  by  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth,  for  his  own  evil  deeds  ;  he  knows  that  this 
cannot  be,  and  he  declares  that  his  Vindicator  will 
by  and  by  appear,  and  do  him  justice  ;  even  though 
his  skin  be  destroyed,  yet  from  his  flesh  he  will  see 
God,  his  Vindicator,  who  will  stand  on  his  side  and 
acquit  him  of  these  accusations.  That  is  the  whole 
of  it ;  there  is  no  suggestion  here  of  a  resurrection 
of  the  body,  or  the  continuance  of  being  after  death 
in  a  bodily  form.  We  do  not  go  back  to  those 
dark  days  for  evidences  of  the  life  to  come.  The 


282    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

conceptions  on  which  our  own  belief  rests  were  not 
then  fully  formed  in  the  minds  of  men.  The  ex- 
pectation of  immortality  has  been,  in  large  mea- 
sure, the  product  of  a  moral  evolution.  The  basis 
of  this  expectation  is  far  broader  and  far  deeper 
now  than  it  was  two  thousand  years  ago. 

Yet  it  ought  to  be  said  at  the  outset  that  we 
have  no  scientific  demonstration  of  immortality. 
No  future  event  can  be  scientifically  demonstrated. 
All  the  astronomers  and  physicists  on  earth  cannot 
prove  that  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow  morning. 
The  future,  to  the  scientific  man  as  well  as  to  the 
religious  man,  is  the  domain  of  faith,  not  of  know- 
ledge. I  cannot  undertake  to  furnish  any  man 
with  proof  drawn  from  mathematical  or  physical 
science  that  there  is  life  for  him  beyond  the  grave. 
So  far  as  our  reasoning  faculties  are  concerned,  the 
life  to  come  can  be  to  us  nothing  more  than  a  ra- 
tional probability.  And  this  probability  will  not 
rest  on  any  single  line  of  evidence,  but  on  consid- 
erations drawn  from  many  different  groups  of  facts 
and  experiences.  The  cable  of  that  anchor  of  hope 
by  which  our  hearts  are  held  to  the  life  everlasting 
is  braided  of  many  strands.  I  shall  try  to  bring 
before  your  thought  some  of  the  elements  which 
are  woven  into  this  great  expectation. 

And  first  it  may  be  well  to  say  negatively  that 
although  physical  science  can  give  us  no  proof  of 
immortality  it  is  equally  impotent  to  furnish  any 
disproof  of  it.  We  know,  indeed,  that  the  mind,  in 
the  present  state  of  existence,  uses  the  body  as  its 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  283 

medium  of  communication  with  the  outside  world  ; 
we  do  not  know  that  the  mind  may  not  be  sepa- 
rated from  this  body,  and  may  not  find  other  in- 
struments and  organs.  Certain  nervous  changes 
always  take  place  in  the  human  body  when  the  hu- 
man mind  is  thinking,  but  these  nervous  changes 
are  not  thought,  any  more  than  the  mechanical 
motion  of  my  hand  when  I  write  is  a  process  of 
thinking.  "  We  may  succeed,"  says  Professor 
Ferrier,  "  in  determining  the  exact  nature  of  the 
molecular  changes  which  occur  in  the  brain  cells 
when  a  sensation  is  experienced  ;  but  this  will  not 
bring  us  one  whit  nearer  the  explanation  of  the  ul- 
timate nature  of  that  which  constitutes  the  sensa- 
tion. The  one  is  objective  and  the  other  subjec- 
tive ;  and  neither  can  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the 
other.  We  cannot  say  that  they  are  identical,  or 
even  that  the  one  passes  into  the  other,  but  only, 
as  Laycock  expresses  it,  that  they  are  correlated." 
But  while  biological  and  chemical  science  can 
neither  prove  nor  disprove  the  separate  existence 
of  the  soul,  and  its  continuance  after  the  death  of 
the  body,  there  are  certain  large  considerations, 
drawn  from  the  philosophy  of  evolution,  which  lend 
great  strength  to  that  belief.  I  quoted  largely,  in 
the  first  chapter,  from  Mr.  Fiske's  recent  remark- 
able essay  on  "  The  Everlasting  Reality  of  Reli- 
gion," to  show  that  the  elements  of  religion  had 
been  evolved  in  the  upward  movement  of  the  race  ; 
that  these  elements  of  religion  are  universal  con- 
stituents of  human  nature  ;  and  that  it  is  just  as 


284    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

unphilosophical  and  preposterous,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  that  such  organs  of  faith 
should  be  developed  in  human  beings,  without  any 
corresponding  spiritual  realities  with  which  they 
could  be  coordinated,  as  it  would  be  to  suppose  that 
the  eye  could  have  been  developed  where  there  was 
no  light,  or  the  ear  where  there  was  no  sound.  The 
existence  of  these  spiritual  faculties  in  man,  as  the 
outcome  of  evolution,  is  proof  that  there  is  a  spirit- 
ual world  with  which  they  are  coordinated. 
.  Now  Mr.  Fiske  tells  us  that  one  of  the  elements 
of  religion  which  is  essential  and  universal  is  the 
belief  in  the  continuance,  in  some  form,  of  the  hu- 
man soul  after  death.  "  The  savage  custom  of 
burying  utensils  and  trinkets  for  the  use  of  the  de- 
parted enables  us,"  he  says,  "  to  trace  it  back  into 
the  glacial  period.  We  may  safely  say  that  for 
more  than  a  hundred  thousand  years  mankind  have 
regarded  themselves  as  personally  interested  in 
two  worlds,  —  the  physical  world  which  daily  greets 
our  waking  senses,  and  another  world,  compara- 
tively dim  and  vaguely  outlined,  with  which  the 
psychical  side  of  humanity  is  more  closely  con- 
nected. This  belief  in  the  Unseen  World  seems 
to  be  coextensive  with  theism  ;  the  animism  of  the 
lowest  savage  includes  both.  No  race  or  tribe  of 
men  has  ever  been  found  destitute  of  belief  in  a 
ghost  world.  Now  a  ghost  world  implies  a  per- 
sonal continuance  of  human  beings  after  death, 
and  it  also  implies  identity  of  nature  between  the 
ghosts  of  man  and  the  indwelling  spirits  of  sun, 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  285 

wind,  and  flood.  It  is  chiefly  because  these  ideas 
are  so  closely  interwoven  in  savage  thought  that  it 
is  often  so  difficult  to  discriminate  between  fetich- 
ism  and  animism.  These  savage  ideas  are  of 
course  extremely  crude  in  their  symbolism.  With 
the  gradual  civilization  of  human  thinking  the  re- 
finement in  the  conception  of  the  Deity  is  paral- 
leled by  the  refinement  in  the  conception  of  the 
Other  "World.  From  Valhalla  to  Dante's  Paradise 
what  an  immeasurable  distance  the  modern  mind 
has  traveled ! 

"  In  our  modern  monotheism  the  assumption  of 
kinship  between  God  and  the  human  soul  is  the 
assumption  that  there  is  in  man  a  psychical  ele- 
ment, identical  in  nature  with  that  which  is  eter- 
nal. Belief  in  a  quasi-human  God  and  belief  in 
the  soul's  immortality  thus  appear  in  their  origin 
and  development,  as  in  their  ultimate  significance, 
to  be  inseparably  connected.  They  are  part  and 
parcel  of  one  and  the  same  efflorescence  of  the  hu- 
man mind."  1 

This  argument  rests,  as  you  see,  upon  the  integ- 
rity of  what  you  may  call  Nature,  —  if  you  choose 
so  to  name  it.  Nature,  let  us  say,  has  been  at 
work  for  a  good  many  hundred  thousand -years,  in 
producing  man.  It  has  fitted  him  with  certain 
powers  and  aptitudes,  and  these  always  correspond 
to  the  conditions  of  his  environment.  It  has  de- 
veloped the  eye,  and  there  is  the  light  which  puts 
him  into  visual  relations  with  surrounding  objects. 
1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  169,  170. 


286    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

It  has  developed  the  ear,  and  the  waves  of  sound 
bring  him  messages  from  the  outside  world.  It 
has  endowed  him  with  the  great  mathematical  con- 
ceptions, —  the  ideas  of  number  and  form,  —  and 
every  existence  that  he  finds  in  the  space  that  sur- 
rounds him  repeats  to  him  these  ideas,  and  verifies 
to  him  the  thought  that  is  native  to  his  mind.  The 
world  without  corresponds  to  the  soul  within.  If 
this  is  the  method  of  Nature,  then  faculties  as 
deep-seated,  as  persistent,  as  universal  as  the  reli- 
gious faculties  must  have  something  corresponding 
to  them  in  the  universe.  If  the  mathematical  fac- 
ulty implies  a  mathematical  world,  why  does  not 
the  spiritual  faculty  imply  a  spiritual  world  ?  The 
reality  of  all  these  other  correspondences  argues 
the  reality  of  religion. 

For,  as  Mr.  Fiske  told  us  in  the  first  chapter, 
these  religious  faculties  are  entitled  to  rank  among 
the  very  highest  in  our  nature.  "  One  aspect  of 
the  fact,"  he  says,  "  not  to  be  lightly  passed  over  is 
that  religion,  thus  ushered  upon  the  scene  coeval 
with  the  birth  of  humanity,  has  played  such  a 
dominant  part  in  the  subsequent  evolution  of  hu- 
man society  that  what  history  would  be  without  it 
is  quite  beyond  our  imagination.  As  to  the  di- 
mensions of  this  cardinal  fact  there  thus  can  be  no 
question.  None  can  deny  that  it  is  the  largest  and 
most  ubiquitous  fact  connected  with  the  existence 
of  mankind  upon  the  earth."  J 

That  Nature  for  a  thousand  seons  should  have 
1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  188,  189. 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  287 

employed  herself  in  awakening,  refining,  enlarging, 
strengthening,  the  religious  impulses  in  the  soul  of 
man,  when  there  were  no  objective  facts  toward 
which  these  impulses  could  be  directed,  is  not,  I 
think,  to  the  philosophic  mind,  a  credible  supposi- 
tion. Our  faith  in  the  integrity  of  the  universe  is 
our  warrant  for  believing  that  the  primary  concep- 
tions of  religion  are  everlasting  realities.  And 
these  indispensable  elements  of  religion  are,  in  the 
words  of  Mr.  Fiske,  "  first,  belief  in  Deity  as  quasi- 
human  ;  secondly,  belief  in  an  Unseen  World  in 
which  human  beings  continue  to  exist  after  death ; 
thirdly,  recognition  of  the  ethical  aspects  of  human 
life  as  related  in  a  special  and  intimate  sense  to 
this  Unseen  World.  These  three  elements  are 
alike  indispensable.  If  any  one  of  the  three  be 
taken  away  the  remnant  cannot  properly  be  called 
a  religion." l 

It  may  be  said  —  it  is  often  said  by  those  who 
imagine  that  they  are  thus  getting  rid  of  spiritual 
realities  —  that  the  faculties  of  man  are  the  result 
of  natural  forces  working  upon  him  ;  that  the  eye, 
for  example,  was  produced  by  the  action  of  the 
light  upon  some  sensitive  surface ;  that  the  light 
playing  upon  the  pigment  stirred  it,  assembled 
and  organized  its  tissues,  and  thus,  during  ages  of 
transmitted  and  slowly  developed  visual  powers, 
created  the  wonderful  organ  which  we  call  the  eye. 
But  it  would  seem,  to  begin  with,  that  there  must 
have  been  in  that  sensitive  pigment  some  capacity 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  174,  175. 


288    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

and  some  tendency  to  respond  to  the  action  of  the 
light.  The  sunshine  awakens  and  develops  the 
plant  germ,  but  the  germ  was  there  to  awaken. 
The  light  may  well  have  been  the  agency  through 
which  the  eye  was  developed,  but  the  preparation 
of  the  living  tissues  for  the  action  of  the  light  was 
not,  probably,  neglected.  And  the  same  thing  is 
true  of  the  religious  faculties.  It  is  not  only  true 
that  their  existence  argues  a  spiritual  realm  with 
which  they  are  in  communion,  it  is  also  true  that 
they  exist  because  of  the  direct  action  of  the  powers 
of  that  spiritual  realm  upon  the  human  intelligence. 
It  is  no  more  true  that  the  bodily  eye  is  the  effect 
of  the  action  of  the  light  upon  sensitive  physical 
tissues  than  that  the  spiritual  vision,  by  which  we 
discern  God,  has  been  quickened  and  developed  by 
the  direct  action  of  the  spirit  of  God  upon  our 
spirits.  For  God  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  dark- 
ness at  all ;  and  it  is  in  his  light  that  we  see  light. 
The  idea  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man  is  the  response 
to  direct  impressions  of  God  made  upon  the 
soul  itself.  "  Reality,"  says  Dr.  Gordon,  "  casts 
its  own  image  in  the  mind,  and  God,  as  Reality, 
has  shadowed  himself  in  the  soul.  There  is  no  ad- 
equate account  of  God  other  than  the  fact  of  God. 
Similarly  with  duty  it  is  an  ultimate  fact ;  there  is 
no  complete  explanation  of  it  short  of  its  recogni- 
tion as  the  effect  in  man's  spirit  of  moral  law.  The 
idea  of  immortality  belongs  with  those  of  God  and 
duty.  It  comes  spontaneously  because  of  a  per- 
ceived invisible  and  spiritual  order  to  which  the 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  289 

soul  belongs.  There  is  an  instinctive  feeling  of 
kinship  between  that  order  and  the  human  spirit. 
Upon  the  human  spirit  that  order  makes  the  im- 
pression that  its  home  is  eternal  in  the  heavens."  l 
The  presence  of  these  feelings  in  the  human 
soul  is  thus  accounted  for  by  the  strict  application 
of  the  evolutionary  philosophy.  They  must,  ac- 
cording to  this  philosophy,  have  arisen  from  the 
action  and  reaction  of  the  soul  of  man  and  its  en- 
vironment ;  and  the  whole  logic  of  evolution  goes 
to  establish  the  fact  that  God  and  the  spiritual 
world  are  the  commanding  facts  in  the  environ- 
ment of  the  human  intelligence. 

Another  argument  from  analogy  rests  on  the  great 
scientific  doctrine  of  the  persistence  of  force.  It  is 
assumed  as  the  foundation  of  all  scientific  reasoning, 
and  is  proved  by  a  wide  induction  of  facts,  that  no 
force  is  lost ;  that  forms  of  energy  are  simply  trans- 
formed in  the  physical  and  chemical  changes.  Mo- 
tion is  changedinto  heat,  and  heat  into  light  and  elec- 
tricity ;  and  the  chemical  changes  that  take  place 
in  the  processes  of  life  and  death  are  simply  trans- 
formations of  energy.  The  food  that  we  take  into 
the  system  is  transformed  into  blood  and  tissue  and 
nervous  force  ;  and  the  death  of  the  body  is  a  sim- 
ple redistribution  of  these  chemical  elements.  To 
the  physical  world  nothing  is  lost  by  this  redistri- 
bution. Every  particle  of  force  in  the  body  enters 
into  other  combinations  and  goes  on  with  its  work. 
*'  Evolution  teaches  us,"  says  one  writer,  "  that  no 

1  The  Witness  to  Immortality,  p.  26. 


290    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

force  can  be  destroyed :  it  can  only  be  transmitted." 
If  this  is  true  of  the  physical  forces,  how  about 
the  spiritual  forces?  The  force  that  manifests 
itself  as  reason,  will,  conscience,  affection  —  is  not 
that  a  real  force  ?  That  it  can  be  resolved  into 
atoms  of  hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  carbon  is  believed, 
I  think,  by  very  few  scientific  men  at  the  present 
day.  It  belongs  to  a  different  series,  and  there  is 
no  evidence  whatever  that  the  two  pass  into  each 
other.  What  then  becomes,  at  death,  of  the  force 
which  manifests  itself  as  reason,  will,  conscience, 
affection  ?  Does  that  come  to  an  abrupt  termina- 
tion ?  Is  Nature  careful  to  carry  over  the  forces  of 
the  physical  series,  while  she  drops  the  forces  of 
the  spiritual  series?  Does  she  give  to  the  lower 
part  of  man's  nature  the  power  of  continuance,  while 
she  denies  it  to  the  higher?  Is  chemical  affinity 
a  more  precious  thing  in  the  universe  than  spiritual 
affection  ?  Must  atoms  endure  while  spirits  decay  ? 

Another  and  more  familiar  argument  is  drawn 
from  the  conception  which  evolution  gives  us  of  the 
final  cause  of  its  own  great  processes.  It  does  not 
seem  to  justify  itself  to  our  reason,  unless  it  pro- 
mises us  an  endless  future  for  the  human  race.  Let 
me  quote  a  few  words  from  Dr.  Gordon's  clear  re- 
statement of  this  argument :  — 

"  Man  is  Nature's  highest  product,  and  he  is  a 
product  of  inconceivable  cost.  Toward  him  Nature 
has  been  looking  forward  from  a  past  indefinitely 
remote.  When  she  was  concerned  chiefly  with  the 
dance  of  atoms,  with  the  play  of  the  primitive  fiery 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  291 

mist,  she  had  the  thought  of  him  in  her  great  heart ; 
when  she  was  elaborating  worlds,  setting  the  solar 
system  on  high,  forming  this  planet  of  ours,  and 
preparing  it  for  life,  man  was  still  her  darling  idea, 
and  in  the  vast  procession  of  life  from  the  barely 
to  the  highly  organized,  he  was  never  for  one  mo- 
ment out  of  sight.  The  evolution,  running  through 
countless  ages,  in  innumerable  forms,  at  a  cost  of 
energy  and  suffering  inconceivably  great,  was  all 
the  while  aspiring  to  manhood.  The  whole  crea- 
tion groaned  and  travailed  in  pain  until  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God.  Man  is  Nature's  last 
and  costliest  work.  The  flower  of  being  is  intelli- 
gence and  love.  The  outcome  of  evolution  through 
self-seeking  is  a  form  of  being  that  confronts  self- 
seeking  as  no  longer  an  indispensable  friend,  but  a 
disastrous  embarrassment,  that  begins  through  self- 
sacrifice  a  yet  more  stupendous  evolution.  Can  it 
be  that  this  last  and  finest  product  of  Nature,  this 
result  of  intelligence  and  love  aimed  at  from  the 
beginning,  and  reached  at  a  cost  immeasurable, 
shall  not  be  conserved  in  growing  beauty  and 
power  forever  ?  Physical  evolution  finds  its  goal  in 
man,  and  the  process  that  hereupon  begins  finds  its 
end  in  the  complete  realization  of  his  ethical  and 
spiritual  nature." l 

This  is  the  argument,  and  to  some  minds  it  will 

have  great  force.     For  every  order   of   creatures 

below  man  there  is  something  higher  and  nobler 

toward   which   to    reach  upward.     Evolution   has 

1  The  Witness  to  Immortality,  p.  20. 


292    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

been  conducting  this  agelong  progress  from  mollusk 
up  to  man.  "  From  cosmic  dust,"  says  Dr.  Mun- 
ger,  "  man  has  become  a  true  person.  What  now  ? 
The  end  of  the  demiurgic  strife  reached,  its  methods 
cease.  Steps  lead  up  to  the  apex  of  the  pyramid. 
What  remains  ?  What,  indeed,  but  flight,  if  he  be 
found  to  have  wings  ?  Or  does  he  stand  for  a  mo- 
ment on  the  summit,  exulting  in  his  emergence 
from  nature,  only  to  fall  back  into  the  dust  at  its 
base  ?  There  is  a  reason  why  the  reptile  should 
become  a  mammal :  it  is  more  life.  Is  there  no 
like  reason  for  man  ?  Shall  he  not  have  more  life  ? 
If  not,  then  to  be  a  reptile  is  better  than  to  be  a 
man,  for  it  can  be  more  than  itself ;  and  man,  in- 
stead of  being  the  head  of  nature,  goes  to  its  foot. 
The  dream  of  pessimism  becomes  a  reality,  justify- 
ing the  remark  of  Schopenhauer  that  consciousness 
is  the  mistake  and  malady  of  nature.  If  man  be- 
comes no  more  than  he  is,  the  whole  process  of  gain 
and  advance  by  which  he  has  become  what  he  is 
turns  on  itself  and  reverses  its  order.  The  benevo- 
lent purpose,  seen  at  every  stage  till  it  yields  to  the 
next,  stops  its  action,  dies  out,  and  goes  no  farther. 
The  ever-swelling  bubble  of  existence,  that  has 
grown  and  distended  till  it  reflects  the  light  of  hea- 
ven in  all  its  glorious  tints,  bursts  on  the  instant 
into  nothingness." 1 

The  impossibility  of  entertaining  such  a  pessi- 
mistic view  of  the  whole  history  of  life  on  the 
earth  drives  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  crown  of 

1  The  Appeal  to  Life,  p.  269. 


THE   HOPE   OF  IMMORTALITY  293 

life  is  immortality  All  the  reasons  which  I  have 
produced  for  believing  in  the  continuance  of  life  be- 
yond the  grave  have  been  drawn  from  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  and  the  modern  scientific  theories 
closely  connected  with  it.  Fifty  years  ago  no  such 
reasonings  as  these  could  have  occurred  to  any 
Christian  thinker.  I  know  not  how  they  may  have 
impressed  other  minds  ;  to  my  own  they  come  home 
with  great  power.  So  far  as  I  have  a  reasoned 
theory  of  the  existence  of  God  and  of  the  future 
life,  it  rests,  very  largely,  on  the  truth  brought  to 
light  by  the  evolutionary  philosophy.  All  who  will 
take  pains  to  find  out  what  are  the  larger  implica- 
tions of  this  philosophy  will,  like  Mr.  John  Fiske, 
find  their  faith  in  the  everlasting  reality  of  religion 
deepened  and  confirmed. 

Many  other  lines  of  argument  might  be  fol- 
lowed ;  I  must  content  myself  with  alluding  to  two 
or  three  considerations  only. 

The  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  me  a  word 
of  authority.  Above  all  who  have  lived  on  this 
planet  he  was  surely  Master  of  the  lore  of  the 
spirit.  His  insight  into  character,  his  revelation 
of  man  to  himself,  and  of  God  to  man,  show  him 
to  have  had  a  knowledge  of  the  deep  things  such 
as  no  other  teacher  has  possessed.  Just  as  I  would 
take  the  word  of  Edison  or  Tesla  about  the  laws 
of  electricity,  just  as  I  would  take  the  word  of 
Peirce  on  a  question  of  mathematics,  or  of  Gray  on 
a  question  of  botany,  certainly,  with  not  less  confi- 
dence, would  I  take  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ  upon 


294    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

any  great  question  of  the  spirit.  And  his  word  is 
always  clear  and  positive  and  unhesitating.  "  We 
speak  that  we  do  know,"  he  says,  "  and  testify  that 
we  have  seen."  There  is  with  him  no  argument  to 
prove  the  life  to  come ;  it  is  assumed  as  one  of  the 
indubitable  certainties.  Nay,  our  Lord  domesti- 
cates it,  as  it  were  ;  he  brings  it  right  home  to  our 
every-day  experience  ;  his  word  is  not  immortality 
—  that  seems  something  future,  and  far  away  ;  he 
calls  it  eternal  life.  It  begins  here,  he  tells  us ; 
we  may  be  living  it  now.  There  is  a  kind  of  life 
that  in  its  very  nature  is  deathless ;  it  goes  on  by 
its  own  momentum.  This  is  the  life  that  he  is  liv- 
ing. They  who  share  his  life  have  the  witness  in 
themselves  ;  for  them  there  is  no  death.  The  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  to  me  a  great  and  solemn  assur- 
ance, and  I  rest  my  soul  upon  it  without  fear. 

The  other  sure  foundation  for  this  belief  is  in 
the  truth  which  Jesus  cleared  and  lifted  into  the 
light,  —  the  truth  that  the  Eternal  God  is  our  Fa- 
ther. This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  one  of  the  three 
great  realities  of  religion ;  but  this  is  first  and 
greatest  of  them  all.  On  this  everything  that 
makes  life  dear  and  beautiful  finally  depends.  If 
this  is  true  all  is  well ;  life  is  sweet  and  death  is 
gain.  If  God 's  in  his  heaven,  all 's  right  with  the 
world  —  with  all  the  worlds.  If  God  is  good,  if 
God  is  our  Father,  the  life  unending  is  our  sure 
portion.  Faith  in  Him  is  guarantee  to  us  that  our 
highest  hopes  and  purest  aspirations  will  not  mock 
us  ;  that  we  shall  not  "  be  cast  as  rubbish  to  the 


THE  HOPE  OF  IMMORTALITY  295 

void  "  when  the  curtain  falls  upon  the  last  scene 
of  all  that  ends  this  strange,  eventful  history.  The 
hunger  of  the  heart  for  more  life,  and  fuller,  is  the 
deepest  craving  that  we  know,  and  in  the  noblest 
souls  it  is  the  strongest.  Who  of  us  has  ap- 
proached the  goal  of  his  aspiration  ?  Who  does 
not  feel  in  his  most  exalted  moments  the  poverty 
of  his  attainments,  the  incompleteness  of  his  life. 
So  little  do  we  know,  so  vast  is  the  chasm  between 
what  we  have  meant  to  be  and  what  we  are,  that  if 
death  were  the  end  of  it  all  our  sense  of  the  failure 
of  life  would  come  down  upon  us  with  crushing 
weight.  Yet  this  very  consciousness  of  incom- 
pleteness, this  outreaching  of  the  s6ul  for  more  life, 
and  fuller,  is  proof  of  immortality,  if  God  is  good. 
This  is  Kant's  great  argument.  "  Be  perfect,"  is 
the  mighty  voice  that  through  every  soul  forever 
reverberates.  But  for  us  perfection  can  only  be 
reached  by  endless  progress  toward  an  endlessly 
receding  goal.  Therefore  man  must  have  eternity 
as  the  field  of  his  moral  development.  No  smaller 
opportunity  is  large  enough  for  his  powers.  The 
moral  ideal  in  the  soul,  the  categorical  imperative 
of  duty,  are  the  outfit  for  a  life  unending.  Be- 
cause God  is  good  it  must  be  that  we  can  be  what 
we  know  we  ought  to  be.  And  that  means  more 
days  than  were  ever  given  to  any  man  upon  this 
earth. 

Every  man,  at  his  best,  has  the  consciousness 
not  only  of  incompleteness,  but  of  unexhausted 
powers.  As  we  draw  toward  the  end  of  life  our 


296    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

conception  of  the  vastness  of  the  work  opening  be- 
fore us,  of  the  multitude  of  the  things  that  we 
might  do  if  there  were  only  time,  constantly  en- 
larges. The  word  of  the  Master  begins  to  be  in- 
telligible :  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with, 
and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished." 
We  are  just  getting  ready  to  work,  just  begin- 
ning to  feel  the  pressure  of  the  great  motives  of 
life,  when  the  evening  shadows  fall,  and  the  day's 
work  is  done.  If  this  is  the  end,  existence  is  a 
mockery ;  if  God  is  good,  those  whose  deepest  de- 
sire is  to  glorify  Him  will  have  another  day. 

But  there  is  a  profounder  truth  than  this.  It  is 
not  only  true  that  an  Infinite  Father  must  give  to 
the  children  of  his  love  the  opportunity  of  realizing 
the  impulses  that  He  has  planted  in  their  souls  and 
of  doing  the  work  that  He  is  calling  them  to  do,  it 
is  also  true  that  if  the  life  of  God,  which  is  the  life 
of  love,  is  the  inspiration  of  our  lives,  we  have  in 
ourselves  the  foretaste  of  immortality.  "  God  is 
love,"  says  the  great  apostle ;  "  and  he  that  abideth 
in  love  abideth  in  God,  and  God  abideth  in  him." 
To  such  a  life  as  that,  what  change  can  come  but 
that  which  leads  from  strength  to  strength,  from 
glory  to  glory  ?  And  every  one  of  us  whose  heart 
is  the  home  of  a  pure  affection  knows  something 
of  what  this  means.  For  love,  as  Dr.  Munger 
says,  "  cannot  tolerate  the  thought  of  its  own  end. 
It  has  but  one  word,  —  forever.  Its  language  is, 
There  is  no  death."  This  is  the  thought  which 
glorifies  Tennyson's  "  In  Memoriam."  As  Dr. 


THE  HOPE   OF  IMMORTALITY  297 

Gordon  says,  "  The  poem  as  a  prophecy  of  immor- 
tality has  its  foundations  in  fact,  the  fact  of  love 
and  its  quality.  ...  It  is  in  a  very  large  sense  a 
poem  of  the  reason,  a  vital  movement  of  thought 
through  all  difficulties  into  the  conviction  that  God 
is  love  and  that  love  is  imperishable."  1 

Thus  we  have  separated  by  our  thought,  that  we 
might  unite  them  again  by  our  larger  reason,  the 
strands  that  form  the  cable  by  which  the  anchor 
of  the  soul  is  held  to  that  within  the  veil.  Each 
of  these  considerations  seems  to  me  very  strong, 
all  of  them  together  form  an  argument  of  faith 
on  which  our  souls  may  repose.  Our  confidence 
in  the  integrity  of  Nature  and  in  the  persistence 
of  spiritual  forces  ;  our  belief  that  evolution  does 
not  bring  us  up  to  the  summits  of  existence,  there 
to  plunge  us  back  again  into  nonentity  ;  our  trust 
in  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  to  whom  is  given  the 
word  of  eternal  life  ;  our  faith  in  the  fidelity  of 
God,  who  will  not  mock  us  by  setting  before  us  an 
impossible  ideal,  —  all  join  to  confirm  our  expec- 
tation of  life  beyond  the  grave.  It  is  an  ennobling 
confidence.  In  the  days  of  darkness,  in  the  hours 
when  the  burdens  are  heavy  and  the  combat  is 
fierce,  it  lifts  up  the  head  and  lightens  the  heart. 
It  is  sometimes  said  to  be  a  selfish  faith,  —  this 
faith  in  the  life  everlasting.  But  I  see  not  how 
the  triumph  of  love  can  be  the  gain  of  selfishness. 
And  the  man  who  has  the  faith  most  firmly  planted 
in  his  heart  is  the  man  whose  life  is  rooted  and 
1  The  Witness  to  Immortality,  pp.  125, 126. 


298    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

grounded  in  love.  One  may  have  some  intellectual 
reasons  for  believing  in  it,  but  that  strong  expecta- 
tion of  it  which  fills  the  heart  with  assurance  is  the 
possession  of  those  only  who  have  something  better 
than  selfish  ends  to  live  for.  "  Men  who  have  re- 
nounced their  individual  happiness,"  says  Count 
Tolstoi,  "  never  doubt  their  immortality.  Christ 
knew  that  he  would  continue  to  live  after  death 
because  he  had  already  entered  into  the  true  life 
which  cannot  cease.  He  lived  even  then  in  the  ray&. 
of  that  other  centre  of  life  toward  which  he  was  ad- 
vancing, and  he  saw  them  reflected  on  those  who 
stood  around  him.  And  this  every  man  who  re- 
nounces his  own  good  beholds  ;  he  passes  in  this 
life  into  a  new  relation  with  the  world  for  which 
there  is  no  death,  and  this  experience  gives  him  an 
immovable  faith  in  the  stability,  immortality,  and 
eternal  growth  of  life."  And  here  is  the  whole 
secret  of  this  vitalizing  faith.  If  you  live  the  kind 
of  life  that  ought  to  last,  you  will  find  it  easy  to 
believe  in  life  eternal ;  if  you  live  the  kind  of  life 
that  ought  to  perish,  you  must  not  expect  that  any 
of  the  proofs  of  future  existence  will  bring  any 
strong  assurance  to  your  soul. 

To  every  one  of  us,  as  the  days  of  our  years 
pass  swiftly,  as  a  tale  that  is  told,  and  the  friends 
of  our  hearts  one  by  one  go  on  before  us  into  the 
world  of  the  unseen,  this  expectation  of  the  life 
to  come  ought  to  grow  stronger  and  clearer.  It 
may  be  a  jubilant  hope,  like  that  of  the  buoyant 
Browning,  who,  in  his  very  last  verses,  hailed  with 


THE   HOPE   OF  IMMORTALITY  299 

a  shout  of  triumph  the  portals  before  which  so 
many  tremble :  — 

"  At  the  midnight  in  the  silence  of  the  sleep-time, 

When  you  set  your  fancies  free, 

Will  they  pass  to  where  —  by  death,  fools  think,  imprisoned  — 
Low  he  lies  who  once  so  loved  you,  whom  you  loved  so, 

—  Pity  me  ? 

"  Oh  to  love  so,  be  so  loved,  yet  so  mistaken  ! 

What  had  I  on  earth  to  do 

With  the  slothful,  with  the  mawkish,  the  unmanly  ? 
Like  the  aimless,  helpless,  hopeless  did  I  drivel, 

—  Being  —  who  ? 

"  One  who  never  turned  his  back  but  marched  breast  forward, 

Never  doubted  clouds  would  break, 

Never  dreamed,  though  right  were  worsted,  wrong  would  tri- 
umph, 

Held  we  fall  to  rise,  are  baffled  to  fight  better, 
Sleep  to  wake. 

"  No,  at  noonday  in  the  bustle  of  man's  work-time 

Greet  the  unseen  with  a  cheer. 

Bid  him  forward,  breast  and  back  as  either  should  be, 
'  Strive  and  thrive  ! '  cry  '  Speed,  —  fight  on,  fare  ever 
There  as  here  1 '  " 

Or  it  may  be  that  the  assurance  will  come  to  us 
in  that  serener  and  more  peaceful  mood  of  Tenny- 
son's last  poem  :  — 

"  Sunset  and  evening  star, 

And  one  clear  call  for  me  ; 
And  may  there  be  no  moaning  of  the  bar 

When  I  put  out  to  sea  ; 
But  such  a  tide  as  moving  seems  asleep, 

Too  full  for  sound  and  foam, 
When  that  which  drew  from  out  the  boundless  deep 

Turns  again  home ! 


300    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

"  Twilight  and  evening  bell, 

And  after  that  the  dark  ; 
And  may  there  be  no  sadness  of  farewell 

When  I  embark  : 
For  though  from  out  our  bourne  of  time  and  place 

The  flood  may  bear  me  far, 
I  hope  to  see  my  Pilot  face  to  face 

When  I  have  crossed  the  bar." 

But  whether  we  come  to  the  end  of  life  exultant,  as 
the  winner  reaches  the  goal,  or  whether  with  hands 
folded  on  the  quiet  breast  we  drift  upon  the  out- 
going tide  to  the  shoreless  ocean,  let  us  trust  that 
in  all  our  hearts  there  may  abide  the  hope  that  can- 
not fail,  and  the  peace  that  passeth  knowledge ! 


XV 

THE   THOUGHT   OF   HEAVEN 

THE  principle  of  contrast  has  been  overworked 
in  religious  philosophy.  The  relativity  of  know- 
ledge implies  that  we  have  no  comprehension  of 
anything  except  as  we  compare  it  with  something 
else,  and  unlikeness  strikes  crude  minds  more  for- 
cibly than  likeness.  Cold  is  more  easily  distin- 
guished from  heat  than  different  degrees  of  cold  or 
heat  are  distinguished  from  each  other.  Our  more 
juvenile  conceptions  are  apt  to  array  themselves 
in  antitheses :  white,  black ;  long,  short ;  quick, 
slow  ;  high,  low ;  hard,  soft ;  good,  bad.  The  child 
generally  assumes  that  everything  is  either  white 
or  black,  and  that  everybody  is  either  good  or 
bad.  And  there  are  children  of  a  larger  growth 
who  carry  this  habit  of  contrast  into  all  their  think- 
ing, and  put  most  of  the  individuals  and  the  groups 
of  whom  they  think  into  antithetical  categories,  — 
as  saint,  sinner ;  patriot,  traitor ;  Protestant,  Cath- 
olic ;  orthodox,  infidel ;  Republican,  Democrat,  — 
with  the  notion  that  these  stand  over  against  each 
other  in  definite  antagonisms  ;  that  everybody  must 
be  the  one  or  the  other,  and  that  all  which  can  be 
affirmed  of  the  one  can  be  denied  of  the  other. 


302    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

There  is  a  kind  of  philosophy  of  history  which 
makes  use  of  this  method  ;  which  assumes  that  the 
forces  which  make  for  progress  are  conflicting 
forces  ;  that  one  period  of  time  comes  to  a  crisis 
and  ends  with  a  crash,  and  is  then  succeeded  by 
another  period  in  which  powers  exactly  opposed  to 
those  formerly  prevailing  bear  rule.  The  theory 
of  history  which  is  based  on  this  conception  is  a 
theory  of  catastrophes  and  cataclysms ;  the  leading 
idea  is  contrast  rather  than  continuity,  conquest  and 
not  progress.  Such  a  historian  would  be  inclined 
to  regard  the  Christian  dispensation  as  the  antithe- 
sis of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  the  American 
government  as  the  antithesis  of  the  English  gov- 
ernment. But  there  is  another  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse with  which  our  minds  are  becoming  more 
and  more  familiar,  —  namely,  that  the  deepest  law 
of  life  is  a  law  of  unfolding  rather  than  of  antago- 
nism, of  continuity  more  than  of  contrast.  Each 
period  of  time,  according  to  this  theory,  has  its 
roots  in  the  period  which  preceded  it ;  history  is 
not  a  succession  of  breaks  and  weldings,  but  an  or- 
derly progress.  One  who  accepts  this  theory  can 
easily  believe  what  Christ  said  about  the  relation 
of  the  kingdom  which  he  came  to  found  to  the 
Jewish  economy  which  had  preceded  it,  —  that  the 
one  is  simply  the  continuation  and  completion  of 
the  other.  "  Think  not,  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law  and  the  prophets  ;  I  am  not  come  to  de- 
stroy, but  to  fulfill."  To  such  a  thinker,  American 
institutions  will  appear  to  be  as  closely  connected 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      303 

with  English  institutions  as  the  stem  is  with  the 
root. 

This  conception,  which  helps  to  unify  the  whole 
of  life,  which  binds  the  past  and  the  future  to- 
gether in  a  genetic  relation,  will  greatly  help  us  in 
answering  our  question,  "  What  do  we  know  about 
heaven?"  The  prevalent  notion  has  been,  no 
doubt,  that  heaven  is  the  antithesis  of  earth.  That 
thought  has  held  comfort  for  many  troubled  and 
weary  souls.  In  the  midst  of  persecution  and 
trials,  it  has  always  been  reassuring  for  men  to 
look  away  to  the  land  beyond  the  grave  and  to  say, 
"  When  we  shall  have  reached  that  good  place 
these  miseries  will  no  more  overtake  us."  Thus, 
setting  the  safety  and  the  purity  and  the  blessed- 
ness of  heaven  over  against  the  danger  and  the  sin 
and  the  sorrow  of  earth,  it  was  natural  enough  that 
men  should  extend  the  contrast  to  every  other  fea- 
ture of  the  two  conditions,  and  learn  to  think  of 
heaven  as  in  all  respects  the  antithesis  of  earth. 
But  this  is  not,  probably,  the  main  truth  about  it. 
Paul  couples  the  life  that  now  is  and  that  which  is 
to  come  as  if  they  were  all  of  a  piece  ;  the  same 
qualities  of  character  give  us  both  ;  both  grow 
from  the  same  root ;  the  one  is  but  the  completion 
of  the  other.  And  this,  we  may  assume,  is  the 
true  conception.  When  the  first  heaven  and  the 
first  earth  shall  have  passed  away  from  the  sight 
of  any  of  us,  and  we  find  ourselves  under  a  new 
heaven  and  in  a  new  earth,  I  am  fain  to  believe 
that  it  will  not  seem  to  us  a  strange  place  at  all. 


304    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

It  is  pleasant  for  me  to  think  that  the  life  to  come 
will  not  greatly  differ  in  its  characteristic  features 
from  the  life  that  now  is. 

Let  us  speak,  first  of  those  elements  of  the  hea- 
venly life  that  are  known  to  us,  proceeding  thus, 
by  the  true  method  of  science,  from  the  known  to 
the  unknown.  I  once  heard  a  preacher  tell  a  vast 
audience  that  no  one  knew  anything  about  heaven 
except  what  the  Bible  tells  him.  The  truth  is  that 
unless  a  man  knows  something  about  heaven  that 
neither  the  Bible  nor  any  other  book  can  tell  him, 
he  will  never  find  heaven,  even  though  he  take  the 
wings  of  the  morning,  and  range  through  space  for 
ages.  The  substance  of  heaven,  the  heart  of  it  all, 
is  within  us ;  and  we  do  not  need  to  cry,  "  Lo  here  ! 
or  lo  there !  "  pointing  to  promises  in  a  book  or 
to  portents  in  the  sky.  That  which  is  central  and 
essential  in  life  for  every  human  being  is  charac- 
ter. The  moral  and  spiritual  elements  make  up 
the  perfection  of  being  in  all  worlds.  Whether 
a  man  is  in  heaven,  or  not,  depends,  first  of  all,  on 
what  the  man  is.  It  is  not  the  scenery,  or  the  sur- 
roundings, that  makes  heaven ;  it  is  the  spiritual 
harmony  within.  The  waves  of  our  common  air 
often  bear  to  us  sweet  strains  of  the  music  of  the 
land  to  which  we  go  :  — 

"  We  bless  thee  for  thy  peace,  0  Lord, 

Deep  as  the  unfathomed  sea, 
Which  falls  like  sunshine  on  the  road 
Of  those  who  trust  in  thee. 

"  That  peace  which  suffers  and  is  strong, 
Trusts  where  it  cannot  see, 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      305 

Deems  not  the  trial  way  too  long1, 
But  leaves  the  end  with  thee  ; 

"  That  peace  which  flows  serene  and  deep, 

A  river  in  the  soul, 
Whose  banks  a  living  verdure  keep, 
God's  sunshine  o'er  the  whole." 

In  words  like  these,  we  feel  upon  our  foreheads  the 
very  breath  that  ripples  the  river  of  the  water  of 
life. 

"  My  God,  I  thank  thee  who  hast  made 

The  earth  so  bright, 
So  full  of  splendor  and  of  joy, 

Beauty  and  light ; 
So  many  glorious  things  are  here 
Noble  and  right. 

"  I  thank  thee,  too,  that  Thou  hast  made 

Joy  to  abound ; 
So  many  gentle  thoughts  and  deeds 

Circling  us  round ; 
That  in  the  darkest  spot  of  earth 

Some  love  is  found. 

"  I  thank  thee,  Lord,  that  thou  hast  kept 

The  best  in  store  ; 
I  have  enough,  yet  not  too  much 

To  long  for  more,  — 
A  yearning  for  a  deeper  peace 
Not  known  before." 

He  who  can  speak  such  words  truly  has  no  need  to 
climb  to  the  heights,  or  fly  to  the  far  countries,  in 
search  of  his  heaven ;  the  substance  of  it  is  already 
in  his  possession. 

What  the  essential  elements  of  the  heavenly  life 
will  be  we  know  perfectly.  The  truth  and  the 
trust,  the  purity  and  the  peace,  the  abounding  love 


306    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

and  the  unselfish  joy,  which  make  life  worth  living 
here  will  be  integral  principles  of  life  in  all  worlds 
so  long  as  humanity  reflects  the  image  of  the 
divine. 

We  are  not,  then,  drawing  wholly  on  our  imagi- 
nation when  we  speak  of  the  life  to  come.  One  who 
can  measure  a  small  arc  of  a  curve  whose  sweep  is 
billions  of  miles  in  extent,  can  picture  the  whole  of 
it ;  he  knows  as  well  the  direction  it  will  take  on 
the  other  side  of  Uranus  as  on  this  side.  And  one 
who  knows  what  are  the  essential  elements  of  moral 
and  spiritual  perfection  in  this  world  knows  what 
is  the  substance  of  heaven. 

But  we  often  think  of  the  form  and  manner  of 
that  life,  the  scenery  and  costume  of  it,  and  wish 
that  we  might  know  how  it  will  look,  how  it  will 
seem.  Doubtless  all  of  us  do,  sometimes,  picture 
to  ourselves  the  life  of  that  country.  We  can 
hardly  help  doing  so.  Some  that  are  very  dear  to 
us  are  dwelling  there,  and  our  imagination  will 
follow  them  and  frame  the  landscapes  through 
which  they  are  moving,  the  skies  that  bend  over 
them,  the  tasks  that  employ  them.  The  bare  out- 
line of  such  a  picture  I  am  going  to  sketch  for  you. 
And  I  ask  you  to  remember  that  it  is  only  an  im- 
agination. I  do  not  say  that  the  manner  of  the 
heavenly  life  is  what  I  shall  represent  it  to  be ;  I 
only  say,  perhaps  it  is  ;  it  may  be ;  this  is  the  way 
I  like  to  think  it  is.  If  any  of  you  have  a  concep- 
tion that  better  satisfies  your  thought  hold  on  to 
that ;  I  only  offer  you  mine  to  think  of  in  the  hope 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      307 

that  it  may  make  heaven  seem  to  some  of  you  more 
human  and  more  homelike. 

For  this  is  my  deepest  thought  about  it :  it  will 
be  home.  That  principle  of  continuity  which 
guides  all  our  thinking  makes  this  highly  probable. 
It  will  not  be  a  foreign  land ;  it  will  be  the  home- 
land. 

I  can  imagine  no  heaven  brighter  than  this 
world  would  be  if  sin  and  its  consequences  were 
abolished.  And  I  always  think  of  the  form  in 
which  men  will  appear  in  heaven  as  being  not  un- 
like that  in  which  they  appear  on  earth.  No  form 
more  beautiful  is  within  the  range  of  my  imagi- 
nation than  the  physical  ideal  of  humanity.  The 
"  human  form  divine,"  the  poets  call  it,  and  that, 
I  suppose,  is  the  literal  truth.  The  archetype  is 
divine.  The  sculptor  never  tries  to  conceive  of 
anything  more  shapely  or  more  fair  than  this  ;  he 
would  realize  his  highest  ambition  if  he  could  re- 
produce the  type  of  beauty  which  the  human  form, 
in  its  manifold  incarnations,  suggests  to  us. 

These  two  conceptions  fit  each  other.  If  the 
world  to  come  is  to  be  in  its  scenery  and  its  out- 
ward features  similar  to  the  world  in  which  we  live, 
such  bodies  as  we  now  possess  will  seem  to  be 
adapted  to  it ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  bodies 
similar  to  these  should  be  ours  in  the  other  world, 
we  might  naturally  expect  the  environment  of  that 
life  to  be  similar  to  the  environment  of  this  life. 

Is  there  any  reason  why  the  bodies  we  inhabit  in 
the  world  to  come  should  not  be  similar  to  those  we 


308    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

inhabit  here  ?  That  they  will  be  free  from  the  de- 
formity and  the  corruptibility  of  our  mortal  bodies 
we  may  indeed  believe,  but  in  form  and  substance 
why  may  they  not  be  like  these  bodies  ? 

Some  one  answers  that  Paul  promises  us  spirit- 
ual bodies  in  the  life  to  come.  But  what  is  a  spir- 
itual body?  The  phrase,  according  to  ordinary 
definitions,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  if  it  is  un- 
derstood as  describing  the  substance  of  the  glorified 
body.  Spirit  and  body  are  antithetical  terms  :  a 
spirit  is  an  incorporeal  existence.  If  the  woixls  of 
Paul  are  taken  ontologically  they  are,  therefore, 
destitute  of  meaning ;  it  is  like  speaking  of  a  white 
blackbird  or  an  ascending  declivity.  Paul  does 
not,  probably,  mean  to  say  that  our  heavenly  bodies 
will  be  made  of  immaterial  material.  I  suppose 
that  he  must  mean  by  a  spiritual  body  a  body  that 
is  perfectly  under  the  control  of  the  spirit ;  a  body 
that  is  a  fit  organ  for  the  spirit,  that  does  not  re- 
fract the  light  of  God  when  it  shines  into  the  soul, 
but  is  a  perfect  medium  for  its  transmission  ;  a 
body  that  not  only  for  purposes  of  impression,  but 
also  for  purposes  of  expression,  is  the  servant  of  the 
spirit.  These  earthly  bodies  often  clog  and  ham- 
per the  spirit :  their  fleshly  appetites  fight  against 
its  aspirations  ;  their  infirmities  paralyze  its  endea- 
vors ;  but  the  bodies  which  we  shall  inhabit  in  the 
life  to  come  will  more  perfectly  answer  the  needs 
of  the  higher  nature,  and  will  aid  instead  of  imped- 
ing the  spirit's  growth.  This  is  why  we  call  them 
spiritual  bodies. 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      309 

But  another  is  reminded  of  these  words  of  Paul : 
"  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Certainly  not  this  flesh  and  blood,  —  not  the 
materials  which  constitute  these  bodies :  the  physi- 
cal substances  of  which  they  are  composed  are  re- 
turned to  the  earth  and  the  air.  The  notion  that  the 
identical  matter  of  the  physical  organism  which 
we  leave  behind  for  burial  is  to  be  reanimated  is 
distinctly  repudiated  by  Paul,  and  physiological  sci- 
ence makes  it  impossible  and  absurd. 

What  then,  you  may  ask,  do  we  mean  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  ?  The  question  cannot 
be  answered  with  any  dogmatic  assurance  :  I  can 
only  give  what  seems  to  me  a  possible  explanation. 

The  human  body,  like  every  other  physical  or- 
ganism, seems  to  be  the  product  of  a  living  princi- 
ple which  chemical  analysis  does  not  isolate.  There 
is  something  behind  these  chemical  laws  that  com- 
mands them.  We  know  very  little  about  this ;  we 
call  it  life :  it  is  the  builder  that  silently  and  with 
divine  skill  marshals  the  bioplasts  and  shapes  the 
organism.  Death  is  simply  the  abandonment  by 
this  silent  builder  of  the  materials  upon  which  he 
has  been  at  work.  But  there  is  no  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  he  dies ;  and  what  we  call  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  may  be  only  the  calling  of  this 
builder  up  to  a  higher  sphere,  where,  out  of  en- 
during and  incorruptible  material,  he  constructs 
another  tabernacle  for  the  spirit,  and  thus,  we  who 
are  unclothed  of  this  mortal  covering,  are  clothed 
upon  with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven.  But 


310    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

if  it  shall  be  the  same  life  principle  which  shall  re- 
construct our  bodies  there,  then  it  is  certain  that 
their  general  type  and  pattern  will  be  like  those 
that  we  inhabit  here.  If  the  organizing  principle 
is  the  same,  the  organism  must  at  least  be  similar. 

Certain  reasonings  confirm,  in  my  thought,  this 
expectation. 

A  large  part  of  the  education  we  receive  in  this 
world  is  in  and  through  the  bodily  senses.  From 
the  moment  when  the  infant  begins  to  measure  dis- 
tances by  putting  forth  his  hand  to  grasp  a  candle 
that  he  cannot  reach,  to  the  last  day  of  the  old 
man's  life,  when  his  practiced  eye  scans  the  coun- 
tenances of  the  watchers  by  his  bedside  to  discern 
if  he  can  their  judgment  concerning  his  fate,  there 
is  a  constant  accumulation  of  knowledge  and  disci- 
pline which  have  come  into  the  soul  through  the 
portals  of  sense.  Not  only  are  new  truths  thus  con- 
tinually revealed  to  the  mind,  but  the  mind  is  also 
steadily  acquiring  new  skill  in  the  use  of  these  or- 
gans. Our  senses  are  nice  instruments,  which  dur- 
ing the  whole  of  our  life  we  are  learning  to  operate  ; 
and  the  degree  of  expertness  which  is  thus  acquired 
would  be  marvelous  if  it  were  not  so  common. 
How  accurately,  for  example,  do  we  learn  at  length 
to  use  the  sense  of  touch ;  how  perfectly  do  we  dis- 
cern shapes  and  surfaces  and  textures  with  our  eyes 
closed.  So  with  all  the  senses.  We  spend  our 
years  in  learning  to  use  them,  and  the  proficiency 
we  gain  is  wonderful.  We  marvel  at  the  brilliant 
Paderewski  when  we  see  his  swift  fingers  dance  so 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      311 

fairily  up  and  down  the  keyboard.  What  wonder- 
ful mastery,  we  exclaim,  of  a  wonderful  instrument ! 
But  we  do  not  often  reflect  that  upon  an  instru- 
ment far  more  delicate,  the  human  body,  we  have 
all  learned  to  perform  far  more  wonderful  feats  of 
skill.  You  are  listening  to  Paderewski :  and  your 
ear  catches  and  individualizes  and  records  every 
one  of  those  rapidly  uttered  notes,  forms  them  into 
musical  phrases,  detects  and  delights  in  the  harmo- 
nies into  which  they  are  woven,  presents,  momently, 
to  your  thought,  this  marvelous  complex  of  sweet 
sounds.  And  how  manifold  are  the  impressions 
hourly  brought  to  your  mind  through  this  one 
avenue  of  sense !  The  whisper  of  the  breeze,  the 
rustle  of  the  leaves,  the  buzz  of  the  insect,  the  chirp 
of  the  sparrow,  the  scream  of  the  jay,  the  whistle 
of  the  distant  locomotive,  the  click  of  the  horse's 
hoofs  and  the  rattle  of  wheels  on  the  pavement,  the 
shout  of  the  children,  the  murmur  of  conversation 
in  the  next  room,  the  ripple  of  the  gas  flame  on  the 
hearth  —  how  quickly  and  surely  do  you  distin- 
guish these  impressions  made  upon  the  ear  by 
the  vibrations  of  the  air  ;  how  accurately,  for  the 
most  part,  do  you  judge  of  the  distance  and  direc- 
tion from  which  these  sounds  have  come  !  All  the 
senses,  as  I  have  said,  are  trained  to  a  similar  nicety 
and  precision  of  action.  We  are  not  apt  to  count 
this  as  part  of  our  education,  because  the  most 
of  it  is  gained  unconsciously ;  but  it  is  really  a 
large  and  highly  important  portion  of  the  best  edu- 
cation. 


312    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

Not  only  are  we  constantly  adding  to  our  skill 
in  the  use  of  the  bodily  senses,  but  they  have 
played  a  large  part  in  the  formation  of  our  char- 
acters. Most  of  our  experiences  of  joy  or  grief,  of 
pleasure  or  pain,  are  ministered  to  us  through  our 
senses.  The  mind  is  addressed,  the  emotions  are 
awakened,  the  will  is  influenced,  by  impressions 
that  come  to  us  through  the  eye,  the  ear,  the  touch, 
the  taste  ;  temptations  assail  us  through  these  ave- 
nues ;  the  training  of  our  intellect,  our  judgment, 
our  power  of  choice,  our  power  of  resistance,  has  to 
do,  continually,  with  our  senses.  In  short,  it  may  be 
said  that  all  our  knowledge  is  colored  through  and 
through  with  sense  impressions ;  that  all  our  moral 
and  spiritual  character  has  been  built  up  out  of  ex- 
periences in  which  sensation  is  a  large  ingredient. 

Now  if  the  bodies  we  inhabit  in  the  other  world 
were  unlike  these,  all  the  proficiency  which  we 
have  gained  in  the  use  of  the  organs  of  sense  would 
be  worthless.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
Creator  would  give  us  these  tools  to  use,  and  keep 
us  using  them  for  a  lifetime,  and  then  when  we 
had  fairly  gained  the  mastery  of  them  would  take 
them  from  us  and  set  us  to  work  with  new  ones  ? 
And  when  we  find  the  elements  of  sensation  mingled 
with  all  our  accumulations  of  knowledge  and  ex- 
perience and  character,  —  woven  through  and 
through  the  whole  of  it,  and  no  more  separable 
from  it  than  the  warp  is  separable  from  the  web, 
—  how  utterly  inconceivable  it  is  that  we  should  be 
placed  after  death  in  conditions  of  life  to  which  all 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      313 

these  elements  of  knowledge  and  character  would 
be  wholly  irrelevant.  It  is  much  more  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  we  shall  have  in  the  other  life  bod- 
ily organisms  with  which  our  spirits  will  be  famil- 
iar, to  the  uses  of  which  they  are  accustomed,  than 
that  we  shall  be  placed  in  tabernacles  all  new  and 
strange  to  us.  I  prefer  to  think  that  death  will 
make  no  serious  break  in  the  continuity  of  our  ex- 
perience ;  that  we  shall  take  up  the  thread  of  exist- 
ence on  the  other  side  as  we  lay  it  down  on  this 
side  ;  and  that  while  the  tone  of  life  will  be  height- 
ened and  its  flavor  sweetened,  yet  the  ways  of  life 
will  seem  familiar ;  the  place  will  not  be  strange ;  the 
new  vesture  of  the  spirit  will  not  appear  novel  or 
unwonted.  It  may  be  something  as  one  who  comes 
back  from  a  journey  and  finds  his  home  improved 
and  beautified,  —  many  discomforts  gone,  the 
cramped  rooms  enlarged,  the  unsightliness  put 
away,  everything  arranged  as  he  had  often  wished 
to  have  it,  yet  still  the  same  home,  with  the  same 
dear  associations,  —  the  same  hearth  to  sit  by,  the 
same  windows  to  look  out  of,  all  the  old  quiet  com- 
forts left,  all  the  old  appointments  calling  him  back 
to  the  old  ways  of  living. 

If,  now,  the  form  of  our  appearing  in  the  world 
to  come  is  similar  to  that  which  is  vouchsafed  us 
here,  then  it  seems  highly  probable  that  the  sur- 
roundings of  life  in  that  world  will  not  be  unlike 
those  of  the  present  life.  External  nature  is  fitted 
to  our  needs  in  this  world.  Man  and  his  environ- 
ment were  made  for  each  other.  Correlation  is  the 


314    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

word  that  expresses  the  connection  between  man 
and  the  physical  realm  ;  and  that  law  will  hold 
good,  no  doubt,  in  the  other  world. 

It  will  not  surprise  me,  then,  when  I  awake  in 
that  land  of  which  we  think  so  much,  but  of  whose 
scenery  we  know  so  little,  if  I  find  myself  in  a 
country  not  greatly  different  from  that  which  I 
have  learned  to  love.  If  we  have  bodies  like  these, 
then  landscapes  like  these  we  here  look  upon  — 
hill  and  valley,  forest  and  field,  meadow  and  river, 
verdure  and  blossoms,  sunny  skies  and  smiling 
fields,  all  these  freed  from  every  scar  of  the  spoiler, 
wearing  no  hint  of  decay  or  changef  ulness  —  will 
be  pleasanter  to  our  eyes  and  more  instructive 
to  our  minds  than  any  other  scenes  we  could  im- 
agine. 

No  poem  about  heaven  was  ever  written  that 
took  stronger  hold  of  the  hearts  of  men  than  that 
one  of  Dr.  Watts,  beginning,  "  There  is  a  land  of 
pure  delight."  The  instincts  of  humanity  respond 
that  if  it  is  not  a  truthful  picture  of  the  heavenly 
world  it  is  one  that  may  well  be  true :  — 

"  There  everlasting  spring  abides 

And  never  withering  flowers,  — 
Death  like  a  narrow  sea  divides 

This  heavenly  land  from  ours. 
Sweet  fields  beyond  the  swelling  flood 

Stand  drest  in  living  green, 
So  to  the  Jews  old  Canaan  stood 

While  Jordan  rolled  between." 

Into  this  strain  the  hymnists  often  fall.  Thus 
sings  our  own  Dr.  Ray  Palmer :  — 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      315 

"  Are  there  bright  happy  fields 

Where  naught  that  blooms  shall  die, 
Where  each  new  scene  fresh  pleasure  yields 

And  healthful  breezes  sigh  ? 
Are  there  celestial  streams 

Where  living  waters  glide 
With  murmurs  sweet  as  angel  dreams, 

And  flowery  banks  beside  ?  " 

And  to  him  answers  Thomas  Olivers  across  the 
waves  of  a  stormy  sea  and  the  snows  of  more  than 
a  hundred  winters  :  — 

"  The  goodly  laud  I  see 

With  peace  and  plenty  blest, 
A  land  of  sacred  liberty 

And  endless  rest ; 
There  milk  and  honey  flow, 

And  oil  and  wine  abound, 
And  trees  of  life  forever  grow 

With  mercy  crowned." 

And  this  singer's  note,  carried  back  by  the  retreat- 
ing years,  is  echoed  by  David  Dickson,  who  more 
than  a  century  before  him  sung  the  praises  of  his 
"  Mother  dear,  Jerusalem  !  " 

"  Right  through  thy  streets  with  pleasing  sound 

The  flood  of  life  doth  flow, 
And  on  the  banks  on  either  side 

The  trees  of  life  do  grow  ; 
These  trees  each  month  yield  ripened  fruit, 

Forevermore  they  spring ; 
And  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 

To  thee  their  honors  bring." 

And  again,  from  a  day  far  down  the  centuries, 
seven  hundred  years  ago,  the  saintly  Bernard  of 
Cluny  began  this  song  that  the  world  has  not  yet 
ceased  to  sing  :  — 


316    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES  ? 

"  O  fields  that  know  no  sorrow, 
O  state  that  fears  no  strife, 
O  princely  bowers,  0  land  of  flowers, 
O  realm  and  home  of  life  !  " 


This  is  poetry,  you  say,  and  poetry  proves  nothing. 
I  am  not  sure  of  that.  On  a  subject  of  this  sort 
the  poets  are  better  authorities  than  the  exegetes 
and  the  logicians.  They  can  tell  us  something 
about  the  native  and  ineradicable  instincts  of  the 
human  heart.  And  those  of  us  who  believe  in  a 
good  God  believe  that  these  instincts  were  divinely 
implanted  and  do  not  universally  crave  that  which 
God  does  not  mean  to  give. 

If,  now,  the  scenery  of  heaven  be  something  like 
what  these  poets  have  imagined,  —  if  field  and 
wood  and  valley  and  hill  and  river  and  lakelet  are 
to  meet  our  vision,  when  we  awaken  in  the  life  to 
come,  —  then  it  seems  not  irrational  that  this  scen- 
ery will  be  inhabited  and  beautified  by  all  kinds  of 
animated  existence.  How  lonely  and  forsaken  would 
such  a  world  as  ours  appear  if  man  were  its  only 
inhabitant !  How  desolate  would  the  forests  be  if 
there  were  no  song-birds  to  fill  them  with  melody, 
no  squirrels  chattering  among  the  boughs,  no  crick- 
ets chirping  under  the  leaves  !  How  vacant  would 
the  landscape  seem  if  there  were  no  cattle  feeding 
upon  the  plains,  no  lambs  skipping  upon  the  hill- 
side, no  signs  anywhere  of  happy  animal  life  ! 

These  fellow  creatures  of  ours  have  their  place 
in  this  world  as  well  as  we.  We  are  fond  of  as- 
suming that  the  world  was  made  for  us,  and  in  the 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      317 

highest  sense  it  is  true  ;  but  there  is  plenty  of  evi- 
dence that  it  was  made  for  them  also,  and  that  we 
without  them  could  not  be  made  perfect.  The  en- 
vironment is  fitted  to  their  wants  as  well  as  to 
ours  ;  they  make  up  an  important  part  of  the 
happy  harmony  of  nature,  and  I  am  not  able  to 
understand  how  their  part  can  be  spared  from  the 
symphony  of  life  in  the  new  heaven  and  the  new 
earth. 

There  is  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
in  which  Paul  pictures  the  whole  creation  as  sharing 
with  man  in  the  sorrow  and  misery  due  to  his  sin, 
and  as  looking  forward  with  eager  expectation  to  the 
consummation  of  the  redemptive  work,  because,  as 
he  says,  "  the  creation  also  shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty 
of  tlie  sons  of  God."  The  sympathy  and  identifi- 
cation of  nature  with  man  in  this  world  point  on- 
ward to  a  continuance  of  the  same  relations  in  the 
world  to  come.  He  who  thought  external  nature 
worth  redeeming,  with  man,  from  the  curse  of  sin 
would  probably  think  it  fit  to  be  the  environment 
of  our  life  in  all  the  ages  of  the  future. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  to  my 
mind  has  some  force.  The  study  of  Nature  has 
always  been  to  man,  and  is  becoming  more  and 
more  to  the  best  men,  a  source  of  the  highest  in- 
struction and  the  deepest  inspiration.  Unsurveyed 
realms  of  truth  are  yet  hidden  from  us  in  na- 
ture, waiting  for  us  to  come  and  explore  their  mar- 
velous treasures.  Here  is  a  fountain  of  knowledge 


318     WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

that  is,  to  our  largest  comprehension,  apparently 
inexhaustible.  And  the  truth  which  we  thus  seek 
in  nature  is  God's  truth.  It  is  his  thoughts  that 
we  find  expressed  in  crystal  and  fossil,  in  tendril 
and  tissue  ;  it  is  his  truth  that  we  have  all  been 
pondering  and  collating  and  trying  to  organize  into 
systems.  It  does  not  seem  reasonable  to  me  that 
when  we  pass  onward  to  the  life  beyond,  the  book 
out  of  which  the  Creator  has  permitted  us  to  gather 
so  many  of  his  wonderful  thoughts  is  to  be  forever 
closed  to  us  ;  that  the  secrets  of  nature  which  we 
have  burned  to  know  shall  be  forever  sealed  up. 
It  is  rather  probable  that  with  illuminated  minds 
and  unwearied  powers  we  shall  be  permitted  to 
carry  forward  these  investigations,  —  to  penetrate 
more  and  more  deeply  into  these  hidden  stores  of 
wisdom.  And  if  we  are  to  study  natural  history, 
we  must  live  among  natural  objects. 

Such  are  some  of  the  ways  of  thinking  about 
the  unknown  future  life  which  to  my  own  mind 
have  become  natural  and  habitual.  Much  of  all 
this  is  an  inference,  more  or  less  legitimate,  from 
that  law  of  continuity  which  has  come  to  rule  in  all 
the  serious  thinking  of  this  generation.  Yet  I  do 
not  hide  from  myself  the  fact  that  it  is  largely 
the  vision  of  what  may  be  rather  than  the  affirma- 
tion of  what  is  or  must  be.  All  I  can  say  is  that 
a  conception  like  this  makes  the  future  life  seem  to 
me  more  real  and  more  alluring  than  any  other 
which  I  can  frame.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  the 
glory  of  going  on  is  part  of  our  high  calling  as  the 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      319 

sons  of  God,  I  like  to  think  of  how  it  will  be  in  that 
Unknown  Country  toward  whose  borders  time  is 
swiftly  bearing  us  all.  You  could  ask  me  many 
questions  about  it  all  which  I  could  not  answer ; 
you  could  point  out  to  me,  no  doubt,  anomalies  and 
improbabilities  in  the  conception  I  have  shown  you. 
But  it  is  not  a  matter  for  dogmatism  or  controversy. 
Something  like  this  the  manner  of  the  life  to  come 
may  be.  That  is  all  I  can  say  about  it.  If  to  any 
of  you  these  thoughts  bring  heaven  nearer,  and 
take  something  of  the  dread  from  the  darkened 
way  that  leads  to  it,  I  shall  have  done  all  that  I 
hoped  to  do. 

One  inference  from  all  this  reasoning  is  so  obvi- 
ous that  I  scarcely  need  mention  it.  If  heaven  is 
anything  like  this,  the  doubt  of  the  recognition  and 
reunion  of  those  who  have  loved  one  another  here 
cannot  disturb  us.  Individuality  will  not  be  lost 
in  this  transition.  Our  own  will  be  their  own  dear 
selves.  They  may  have  grown  fairer  and  lovelier, 
but  the  essential  elements  of  personality  will  be 
preserved  ;  all  the  dear  familiar  traits  and  ways  by 
which  we  knew  them  here  we  shall  find  in  them 
there  ;  they  will  be  ours  at  once  and  forever.  Nay, 
they  are  ours  even  now.  Let  us  never  speak  of 
them  as  though  they  were  not.  We  are  parted 
from  them  a  little  space  —  who  can  tell  how  far  ? 
a  little  time  —  who  knows  how  long  ?  But  they 
belong  to  us  as  much  as  ever  they  did.  Love  is 
ownership.  Love  is  not  dead.  Love  gave  them 
to  us ;  love  knit  our  souls  with  theirs.  Is  death 


320    WHAT  IS  LEFT  OF  THE  OLD  DOCTRINES? 

mightier  than  love  ?  Nay,  verily ;  for  He  whose 
name  is  Love  hath  conquered  death.  God  gave  to 
us  these  friends  of  ours.  Is  not  every  good  and 
perfect  gift  from  above  ? 

"  God  lent  them  and  took  them,  you  sigh  : 
Nay,  there  let  me  break  with  your  pain ; 

God  's  generous  in  giving,  say  I : 

And  the  thing  that  he  gives,  I  deny 
That  he  ever  can  take  back  again." 

Therefore,  because  He  is  good,  and  because  his 
power  is  equal  to  his  goodness,  we  believe  that 
when  we  pass  beyond  the  veil  we  shall  soon  find 
those  who  now,  for  a  little  while,  are  beyond  our 
sight.  The  Infinite  Love  knows  where  they  are 
and  knows  how  much  we  need  them,  and  his  hand 
will  quickly  conduct  us  to  the  homes  where  they 
abide,  to  the  places  that  they  have  made  ready  for 
us.  Therefore  from  our  hearts  to  them,  and  from 
their  hearts  to  us,  let  sweet  thoughts  come  and  go 
like  angels  ascending  and  descending,  weaving  the 
web  of  hopes  and  "imaginings  between  the  life  that 
now  is  and  the  life  that  is  to  come,  and  making  the 
common  joys  of  time  the  prelude  and  the  promise 
of  the  life  unending. 

"  The  good  that  we  work  for  is  hard  to  win, 
But  our  labor  and  worship  are  woven  in 
To  our  marvelous  web  with  the  beauty  we  see, 
Unfolding  from  blossom  and  star  and  tree, 
That  widens  and  lengthens  and  stretches  above 
Out  into  the  deeps  of  Invisible  Love. 
O  spirits  dear,  who  have  vanished  from  sight, 
You  are  only  hid  in  a  splendor  of  light 
That  is  as  the  dazzling  soul  of  the  sun ; 


THE  THOUGHT  OF  HEAVEN      ?21 

There  are  many  mansions,  the  home  is  one, 

And  the  doors  are  open,  the  light  shines  through ; 

I  am  glad  that  I  live  in  the  world  with  you." 

And  now  will  those  who  have  followed  me 
through  these  discussions  suffer  me  for  one  mo- 
ment to  recall  the  question  from  which  we  started, 
—  "  How  much  is  left  of  the  old  doctrines  ?  "  We 
have  not  considered  them  all ;  but  we  have  had  be- 
fore our  minds  some  of  the  most  important  of  them, 
and  we  have  tried  to  find  out  whether  there  is  any 
truth  in  them.  And  what  impression  is  left  upon 
your  minds  ?  Doubtless  we  have  discovered  that 
much  of  extra-belief  and  superstition  had  gathered 
about  these  central  truths  which  needed  to  be 
stripped  off  and  cast  away.  The  pruning-knife 
needs  to  be  freely  used  in  our  theological  husban- 
dry. But,  after  all,  have  we  not  found  that  the 
great  central  truths  of  Christianity  stand  firm  and 
true  ;  that  our  enlarging  knowledge  of  the  universe 
has  given  us  stronger  reasons  than  we  ever  had 
before  for  believing  in  the  everlasting  reality  of 
religion  ?  Is  not  the  life  of  faith  and  prayer,  the 
life  of  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ,  the  life  that 
finds  its  source  and  inspiration  in  things  unseen 
and  eternal,  a  rational  life  for  you  and  me  ?  If 
these  things  are  so,  they  are  worthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion by  all  of  us  ;  and  we  shall  hardly  gain  the 
consent  of  our  better  selves  to  ignore  them  or  put 
them  by. 


HLBCTROTYPED  AND  PRINTED 
BY   H.   O.    HOUGHTON   AND  CO. 


CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.  S.  A. 


WORKS  OF  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM 

PUBLISHED   BY 
HOUQHTON,    MIFF  LIN   &   COMPANY. 


LYMAN  ABBOTT.     Life  and  Letters  of  Paul  the  Apostle. 

I2mo,  $1.50. 

MYRON  ADAMS.     The  Creation  of  the  Bible.     Crown  8vo, 

$1.50. 

JAMES  FREEMAN  CLARKE.  The  Ideas  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul  translated  into  their  Modern  Equivalents. 
Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 

C.  C.  EVERETT.    The  Gospel  of  Paul.    Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 

FREDERIC  GARDINER.     Aids  to  Scripture  Study.    i6mo, 

$1.25. 

J.  F.  GENUNG.  The  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life.  Being  the 
Book  of  Job,  translated  anew.  With  Introductory  Study, 
Notes,  etc.  i6mo,  $1.25. 

•WASHINGTON  GLADDEN      How   Much   is   Left  of  the 

Old  Doctrines  ?     i6mo,  $1.25. 
Who  Wrote  the  Bible  ?     A  Book  for  the  People.     i6mo, 

$1.25. 
Seven  Puzzling   Bible   Books.     A   Supplement  to   "  Who 

Wrote  the  Bible  ?     i6mo,  $1.25. 
The  Lord's  Prayer.     i6mo,  $1.00. 

WILLIAM  ELLIOT  GRIFFIS.     The  Lily  Among  Thorns. 

A  Study  of  the  Biblical    Drama  of  the   Song   of   Songs. 

i6mo,  $1.25;  white  cloth,  gilt  top,  $1.50. 
E.  W.  E.  REUSS.     History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the 

New   Testament.      Translated    from   the   latest   German 

Edition,  with   Bibliographical     Additions  by  EDWARD   L. 

HOUGHTON.       2  vols.  8vO,  $5.00. 

J.  H.  THAYER.  Books  and  their  Use.  With  a  List  of 
Books  for  Students  of  the  New  Testament.  Crown  8vo, 
75  cents. 

The  Change  of  Attitude  towards  the  Bible.     A  Lecture. 
i6mo,  50  cents. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


orm  L9-Series  444 


A     000  595  795    6 


